2018-03-06 19:38 GMT+01:00, Thomas Mundt <tmund...@gmail.com>: > > 2018-03-05 13:48 GMT+01:00 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > >> 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. > > For me reviewing would be easier when Vasile sends a patchset > that includes the replacement of tinterlace filter.
The first patch would be quite trivial, this patch is the one you have to review... > That way existing fate tests could be used which are fortunately pretty > extensive in this case. I thought that one patch should remove the existing filter and another one adding the new one but I agree that fate suggests to do this in one patch. > Also it would be helpful when you and/or other experienced ffmpeg > developers would clarify first which parts of tinterlace have to be > rewritten for proper relicensing. The suggestion is to replace the whole filter instead of rewriting parts which definitely is the safer solution. > Being left in the dark makes working on patches frustrating. I don't understand this comment, sorry. > Another question is how to deal with vf_interlace? IMHO for the user there > should be no difference in output, speed and license. The whole point of this patch is to make a difference license-wise: Having the same filter also for default compilation is an improvement imo. > Two options: > 1. Relicensing and slice threading will also be ported to vf_interlace > 2. The commands from vf_interlace will be included in the new tinterlace > filter. vf_interlace will be deleted together with old tinterlace filter I believe 2 was suggested. Is the patch not sufficient? > I would prefer the second option, but maybe there are even better options > that don´t come to my mind. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
