Sven Dueking (2018-03-16): > Ping !?!? I think I am actually expected to reply.
I think that by reviewing the patch I gave the impression that I was promising to accept the patch in FFmpeg. It was not so, and I apologize if it was taken that way. The original patch contained significant changes in the standard network code that made it much more complex, I wanted to avoid that, that is the reason I reviewed, it was purely technical. The decision to accept a patch in FFmpeg is not purely technical, it also involves balancing the cost of maintenance with the benefit for users. In this instance, the recent discussion on libav-dev seems to indicate that the API and ABI of this library could be not very stable, making the cost of maintenance relatively high, a fact that is worsened by the library not being integrated in major Linux distros. As for the benefit for users, are there public servers serving interesting content accessible with this protocol? Are there situations where this protocol would allow several instances of ffmpeg to communicate significantly better than other protocols? I am not aware of any. That, plus the poor choice of name (seriously, who dabs in multimedia and does not know that SRT has been a subtitle format for more than fifteen years? and there is the SRTP profile too) makes me doubtful about integrating this in FFmpeg. But it is not my choice only. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
