Anton Khirnov (12020-01-28): > That makes no sense. The filter cannot "have needs" when the current API > does not support the use case you have in mind (which is good). The > filter can either be modified to allow multiple inputs or a new filter > can be added.
It makes perfect sense: I know what I planned when I wrote them, and the plan was always that when we would replace the channel layout API, it would be able to express duplicated channels. And we will not demand users to learn new filters for that. You can continue to disregard my arguments, and getting close to being insulting while you are at it, but you will not get me to change my mind like that. The API, as it is, is rejected. Either we design a good API, one that can satisfy the needs you see and the needs I see, or we keep the current, very simple, API. No half-measure that brings all the drawbacks and almost no benefit. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
