James Almer 于2016年11月29日 周二上午5:46写道：
> On 11/28/2016 6:07 PM, James Almer wrote:
> > On 11/28/2016 5:40 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >> On 28.11.2016 13:18, James Almer wrote:
> >>> [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit. It's extremely
> disrespectful.
> >> Everyone reading your mail gets
On 11/28/2016 6:07 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 5:40 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> On 28.11.2016 13:18, James Almer wrote:
>>> [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit. It's extremely disrespectful.
>> Everyone reading your mail gets a clear picture of who is disrespectful.
>>
> Maki
On 11/28/2016 5:40 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 28.11.2016 13:18, James Almer wrote:
>> [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit. It's extremely disrespectful.
>
> Everyone reading your mail gets a clear picture of who is disrespectful.
>
Making my annoyance at the subject known using th
On 11/26/2016 01:00 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
[..]
Since a month has passed, reynaldo still hasn't responded, I think it's
This is not correct. I have been working on weeding
out it's private API usage problems. Last commit to
this effect is from 3 weeks ago.
Bests,
--
Reynaldo H. Ver
On 28.11.2016 13:18, James Almer wrote:
> [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit [...] shit. It's extremely disrespectful.
Everyone reading your mail gets a clear picture of who is disrespectful.
Please re-read our code of conduct and follow it in the future.
I don't know why you are so enraged about
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:14:15AM -0500, compn wrote:
[...]
> so michael, my advice to you is to just OK the patch and deal with
> ffserver later... if enough users come back to complain about its
> demise. i feel that this discussion is going no where if both sides are
> unable to come to a compr
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:03:53PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> > How about the news entry on the website stating ffserver was meant to
> > go with 3.2? And the discussions that lead to it? That's a good rational
> > argument.
>
> # November
On 11/28/2016 1:52 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:07:31PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 12:59 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
No Nicolas. It's a reminder that this patch, as discussed and announced,
>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:59:54 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> > Look it up, stop trying to rewrite history and stop being part of the
> > aforementioned malicious behavior.
>
> I see nothing malicious in trying to keep a useful program up to date.
> You have strange priorities.
I'm sorry to info
On 11/28/2016 2:16 PM, Reto Kromer wrote:
> I'm also very strongly for keeping ffserver.
>
> Best regards, Reto
Thanks, but this was up to discussion months ago, not now.
You're however welcome to help the efforts of making it work on
its own separate repository if you're interested in it.
On 11/28/2016 1:39 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> I discuss project management. This is a late attempt at overriding a decision
>> from parties that didn't participate in the real decision making discussions.
>
> Maybe they did not participate b
I'm also very strongly for keeping ffserver.
Best regards, Reto
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:05:29 +0100
Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 11/28/16, compn wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:22:48 +0100
> > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >
> >> I dont know if people want me and reynaldo to spend less time on
> >> FFmpeg, but time is a finite resource. If ffserver is maintai
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:07:31PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 12:59 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> >> No Nicolas. It's a reminder that this patch, as discussed and announced,
> >> will
> >> be pushed.
> >
> > And the Corleone gi
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> The suggestion can be made if that happens in the future,
I can assure you, the suggestion will be made about five minutes about
the push, if it happens.
> i guess, but i
> doubt it wi
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> I discuss project management. This is a late attempt at overriding a decision
> from parties that didn't participate in the real decision making discussions.
Maybe they did not participate because they were busy working on the
actual code.
>
On 11/28/2016 1:31 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 11/28/16, James Almer wrote:
>>> What difference does it make?
>>
>> That the decision was made, and there's no going back. And much less after
>> the malicious attempts i already described and pointed you to, that you
>> seemingly intend to ignore.
On 11/28/16, James Almer wrote:
>> What difference does it make?
>
> That the decision was made, and there's no going back. And much less after
> the malicious attempts i already described and pointed you to, that you
> seemingly intend to ignore.
It can be readded later, after its fixed?
___
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> No Nicolas. It's a reminder that this patch, as discussed and announced, will
> be pushed.
And the Corleone give you reminders that they will break your legs.
> I don't care about ffserver.
Then do not discuss ffserver.
>
On 11/28/2016 12:59 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> No Nicolas. It's a reminder that this patch, as discussed and announced, will
>> be pushed.
>
> And the Corleone give you reminders that they will break your legs.
>
>> I don't care about ffser
On 11/28/2016 1:03 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> How about the news entry on the website stating ffserver was meant to
>> go with 3.2? And the discussions that lead to it? That's a good rational
>> argument.
>
> # November 29th, 2016, ffserver
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> How about the news entry on the website stating ffserver was meant to
> go with 3.2? And the discussions that lead to it? That's a good rational
> argument.
# November 29th, 2016, ffserver not removed
#
# Thanks to the efforts of dedicated dev
On 11/28/2016 12:25 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
>> The majority.
>
> Rational arguments first.
How about the news entry on the website stating ffserver was meant to
go with 3.2? And the discussions that lead to it? That's a good rational
a
On 11/28/2016 12:24 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> Threats? The only thing i see are reminders of what should have happened
>> earlier and will happen soon, as discussed an announced.
>
> Reminding of unpleasant things over which you have total
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> To what end? Aren't we dug in, don't we need a decision and follow through
> with the elected outcome?
Democracy does not work that way. Before elections, you need
campaigning, arguments, debating. That way people can make an informed
dec
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> > The majority.
>
> Rational arguments first.
To what end? Aren't we dug in, don't we need a decision and follow through
with the elected outcome?
This has been going on f
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> The majority.
Rational arguments first.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> Threats? The only thing i see are reminders of what should have happened
> earlier and will happen soon, as discussed an announced.
Reminding of unpleasant things over which you have total control, that
is called threats.
"You will burn yours
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, compn a écrit :
> > these developers feel very strongly about removing ffserver.
>
> I feel very strongly about keeping ffserver. Who is right?
The majority. OK, so this is going nowhere. Vote, everyon
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXV, compn a écrit :
> these developers feel very strongly about removing ffserver.
I feel very strongly about keeping ffserver. Who is right?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-d
On 11/28/16, compn wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:22:48 +0100
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
>> I dont know if people want me and reynaldo to spend less time on
>> FFmpeg, but time is a finite resource. If ffserver is maintained
>> externally it would mean a noticable hit in maintaince man hours
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:22:48 +0100
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> I dont know if people want me and reynaldo to spend less time on
> FFmpeg, but time is a finite resource. If ffserver is maintained
> externally it would mean a noticable hit in maintaince man hours of
> FFmpeg. Now it might be that
On 11/28/2016 11:04 AM, compn wrote:
> maybe when there is a conflict of opinion on a patch, we should agree
> to disagree on said patch and ignore it?
>
> instead of arguing endlessly about it?
No. The one patch where that was an option was the news entry patch, the
last time this whole deal was
maybe when there is a conflict of opinion on a patch, we should agree
to disagree on said patch and ignore it?
instead of arguing endlessly about it?
not specifically targeting you, james, but a lot of people in this
thread.
-compn
___
ffmpeg-devel mai
On 11/28/2016 7:34 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> We don't care about testing it with FATE.
>
> Yes, we do.
>
>> It appears to me that you still
>> don't
>> get that ffserver is being *dropped*. It is
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:22:48AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 05:31:39PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 07:30:24PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > >
Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> We don't care about testing it with FATE.
Yes, we do.
> It appears to me that you still
> don't
> get that ffserver is being *dropped*. It is, as discussed and announced, no
> longer part of the pr
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 05:31:39PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 07:30:24PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:49:35PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Sun
On 11/27/2016 8:53 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 28.11.2016 00:37, James Almer wrote:
>> On 11/27/2016 8:23 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> This can't happen while ffserver still uses internal API, and when it
>>> doesn't
>>> making it standalone isn't really useful, in particular because a s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2016/11/27 23:56, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 27 November 2016 at 23:20, James Almer
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/2016 6:00 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
>>> On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
>>>
>>>
>>> Since a month has pass
On 27 November 2016 at 23:20, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/26/2016 6:00 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> > On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 26 October 2016 at 23:33, Andreas Cadhalpun <
> >> andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2
On 28.11.2016 00:37, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/27/2016 8:23 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> This can't happen while ffserver still uses internal API, and when it doesn't
>> making it standalone isn't really useful, in particular because a standalone
>> version can't be tested with FATE.
>
> We do
On 11/27/2016 8:23 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 28.11.2016 00:14, James Almer wrote:
>> On 11/27/2016 7:32 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> On 26.11.2016 22:00, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
Since a month has passed, reynaldo still hasn't responded, I think it's
long overdue to push th
On 28.11.2016 00:14, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/27/2016 7:32 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> On 26.11.2016 22:00, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
>>> Since a month has passed, reynaldo still hasn't responded, I think it's
>>> long overdue to push this patch. I've attached a new version of the patch
>>>
On 11/26/2016 6:00 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26 October 2016 at 23:33, Andreas Cadhalpun <
>> andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27.10.2016 00:16, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
On 26 October 2016 a
On 11/27/2016 7:32 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 26.11.2016 22:00, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
>> Since a month has passed, reynaldo still hasn't responded, I think it's
>> long overdue to push this patch. I've attached a new version of the patch
>> which only removes the ffserver program (with
On 26.11.2016 22:00, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> Since a month has passed, reynaldo still hasn't responded, I think it's
> long overdue to push this patch. I've attached a new version of the patch
> which only removes the ffserver program (without touching anything else),
> which had been OK'd by
On 27.11.2016 19:36, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> If somethig critical remains, please someone list exactly what that is.
> so reynaldo, i or others can go over the list and look into the issues
As far as I'm aware the following points are most problematic:
* ffserver uses internal functions, see
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 07:30:24PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:49:35PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 07:46:34PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> > You can fix a ton of little things in it, but unless the fundamental
> > problems are addressed (ZERO internal API usage + at least partial FATE
> > coverage) it's pointless
>
> of course the goal is ZERO internal API u
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 07:30:24PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:49:35PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > ffs
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 02:05:44PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 09:00:41PM +, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> > On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26 October 2016 at 23:33, Andreas Cadhalpun <
> > > andreas.cadhal
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:49:35PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > [...]
> > > ffserver had 14 commits to it in about the last month
> >
> > That's also p
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:57:36PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
> > ffserver had 14 commits to it in about the last month
>
> That's also pretty close to the number of commits in the last years.
>
> Good will in the las
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> ffserver had 14 commits to it in about the last month
That's also pretty close to the number of commits in the last years.
Good will in the last weeks is not enough of a technical
merit/justification to prevent the remov
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 02:33:54PM +0100, wm4 wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:05:44 +0100
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 09:00:41PM +, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> > > On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:05:44 +0100
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 09:00:41PM +, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> > On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26 October 2016 at 23:33, Andreas Cadhalpun <
> > > andreas.cadhal.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 09:00:41PM +, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 26 October 2016 at 23:43, Rostislav Pehlivanov
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 26 October 2016 at 23:33, Andreas Cadhalpun <
> > andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 27.10.2016 00:16, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
On 25.11.2016 22:22, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:13:54 +0100
> Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>
>> On 25.11.2016 10:36, wm4 wrote:
>>> I'd like to add that removing the ffserver support from the libs, and
>>> all deprecated stuff it depends on, will make it actually easier to
>>> readd ffserver
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:13:54 +0100
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 25.11.2016 10:36, wm4 wrote:
> > I'd like to add that removing the ffserver support from the libs, and
> > all deprecated stuff it depends on, will make it actually easier to
> > readd ffserver in a cleaner way. It reduces the risk
On 25.11.2016 10:36, wm4 wrote:
> I'd like to add that removing the ffserver support from the libs, and
> all deprecated stuff it depends on, will make it actually easier to
> readd ffserver in a cleaner way. It reduces the risk that the new
> ffserver accidentally depends on mechanisms that were s
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 21:40:14 -0300
James Almer wrote:
> On 11/24/2016 8:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> > On 24.11.2016 10:53, Josh de Kock wrote:
> >> There's no benefit in waiting for this to occur before ffserver is
> >> removed as it will always be in git history. Removing ffserver from
>
On 11/24/2016 8:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 24.11.2016 10:53, Josh de Kock wrote:
>> There's no benefit in waiting for this to occur before ffserver is
>> removed as it will always be in git history. Removing ffserver from
>> master may even speed up the "resurrection of ffserver". I think
On 24.11.2016 10:53, Josh de Kock wrote:
> There's no benefit in waiting for this to occur before ffserver is
> removed as it will always be in git history. Removing ffserver from
> master may even speed up the "resurrection of ffserver". I think this
> shouldn't be delayed any further.
Similarly
On 29/10/2016 16:53, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 28.10.2016 19:31, compn wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:42:22 -0300 James Almer wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2016 3:36 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
> This is not how things were agreed.
I
On 10/30/2016 8:23 PM, Lukasz Marek wrote:
> On 27.10.2016 20:26, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03:07AM -0700, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
>> I agree with moving the apps to a seperate repo hosted within
>> the same infra and keeping ffserver.
>> I will help with
On 27.10.2016 20:26, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03:07AM -0700, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
I agree with moving the apps to a seperate repo hosted within
the same infra and keeping ffserver.
I will help with ffserver as my time & todo list permits
I don't follo
Hi Reynaldo,
On 28.10.2016 20:41, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> I'm already working on what I think it's a proper transition in
> line with the idea presented on my first reply to this thread.
>
> My impression from today's discussion on IRC is that James
> and Rostislav are willing to gi
On 28.10.2016 19:31, compn wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:42:22 -0300 James Almer wrote:
>> On 10/27/2016 3:36 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
This is not how things were agreed.
>>> I haven't agreed to this.
>> You could have shown your
Hi
I'm already working on what I think it's a proper transition in
line with the idea presented on my first reply to this thread.
My impression from today's discussion on IRC is that James
and Rostislav are willing to give this process some time but
nothing past next release.
Bests,
--
Reynal
On 10/28/2016 2:31 PM, compn wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:42:22 -0300 James Almer wrote:
>> On 10/27/2016 3:36 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
This is not how things were agreed.
>>> I haven't agreed to this.
>> You could have shown you
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:42:22 -0300 James Almer wrote:
> On 10/27/2016 3:36 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> > On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
> >> This is not how things were agreed.
> > I haven't agreed to this.
> You could have shown your displeasure in the relevant discussion
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet <
reyna...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
>
>> [..]
>>
>> This is not how things were agreed.
>>
>>
> I haven't agreed to this.
Agreement that does not have to be unanimous.
Ronald
Hello
On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
[..]
This is not how things were agreed.
I haven't agreed to this.
The patch fixes nothing while breaking master
for ffserver users. There's a way forward, but
the patch can't be applied before it happens.
Bests,
--
Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pino
On 10/27/2016 3:36 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> Hello
>
> On 10/27/2016 11:25 AM, James Almer wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> This is not how things were agreed.
>>
>
> I haven't agreed to this.
You could have shown your displeasure in the relevant discussion and patch
threads, and on IRC. Why
On 10/27/2016 3:22 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> I understand you might be upset but please refrain from
> using bad language.
>
> The way I see it your removal will happen once there's a
> solution in place just not before. This is why the patch
> is not rejected.
This is not how thi
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03:07AM -0700, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> I'm not OK with this patch. My reasons are:
>
> * There are users relying on it
> * We gain nothing by removing ffserver without a
> replacement or alternate solution
>
> One solution I would support is a transition
I understand you might be upset but please refrain from
using bad language.
The way I see it your removal will happen once there's a
solution in place just not before. This is why the patch
is not rejected.
Bests,
--
Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet
Open Source Group - Samsung Research America
On 27 October 2016 at 19:14, James Almer wrote:
> On 10/27/2016 3:03 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> > I'm not OK with this patch. My reasons are:
> >
> > * There are users relying on it
> > * We gain nothing by removing ffserver without a
> > replacement or alternate solution
> >
>
>
On 10/27/2016 3:03 PM, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet wrote:
> I'm not OK with this patch. My reasons are:
>
> * There are users relying on it
> * We gain nothing by removing ffserver without a
> replacement or alternate solution
>
We've discussed the removal of ffserver and even /announced/ it
I'm not OK with this patch. My reasons are:
* There are users relying on it
* We gain nothing by removing ffserver without a
replacement or alternate solution
One solution I would support is a transition made by
moving all applications to a separate repo hosted within
the same infra. With a co
On 10/26/2016 7:43 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> From 48d1ed653e7841f49f50559510ca06f524cbbf1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Rostislav Pehlivanov
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:38:46 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] Remove the ffserver program
>
> Also changes the mpjpeg boundary tag to "ffmpeg" (it'
On 27.10.2016 00:16, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 26 October 2016 at 22:48, James Almer wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2016 6:19 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
>>> Also removes url_feof from libavformat.v which should have been
>>> removed long ago and changed the multipart jpeg boundary tag to
>>> ff
On 10/26/2016 6:19 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> Also removes url_feof from libavformat.v which should have been
> removed long ago and changed the multipart jpeg boundary tag to
> ffmpeg rather than ffserver (it's arbitrary).
[...]
> diff --git a/libavformat/libavformat.v b/libavformat/libav
84 matches
Mail list logo
