On 3/5/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2018-03-05 12:37 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >> On 3/5/18, Vasile Toncu <vasile.to...@tremend.com> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. I've made changes according to your guidance. >>> >>> It would be great to know if the community will go on with our intention >>> of adding reinterlace as a alternative for tinterlace. >>> >>> That being said, here is the new patch. >> >> As already said, this is not acceptable. >> >> There is no point in having 2 filters with near same funcionality. > > If you consider the new filter ok, the existing filter will be removed > in the same push. I believe sending only the new filter makes > reviewing easier.
I'm ok with that, but next commits that do that and also do rename are not available. I'm also not sure can reinterlace filter be cosidered really safe from standpoint that it does not use any old GPL code. Also bunch of stuff it does is trivial, both new and old GPL code so I consider nobody should care about its license. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
