On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 07:10:39PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 12/22/2016 2:16 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> >> You still have time to address the arguments from wm4's review you
> >> skipped in your previous reply. You only sort-of answered t
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> Then you're not addressing them
I have: the complexity, in all its details, is necessary because of the
next patch. Including the "leaky abstraction", including the O(1)
implementation, including the lack of genericness.
This is the short and l
On 12/22/2016 2:16 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> You still have time to address the arguments from wm4's review you
>> skipped in your previous reply. You only sort-of answered to the "Is
>> all this complexity really justified?" question.
>
> Al
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 18:16:49 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> > You still have time to address the arguments from wm4's review you
> > skipped in your previous reply. You only sort-of answered to the "Is
> > all this complexity really justified?"
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> You still have time to address the arguments from wm4's review you
> skipped in your previous reply. You only sort-of answered to the "Is
> all this complexity really justified?" question.
All the rest was only sub-questions to the big one: deta
On 12/22/2016 1:44 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> wm4:
>>
>
> I will not waste my and everybody's time answering these half-truths
> directly.
>
> I will, of course, continue to answer to people of good will.
You still have time to address the arguments from wm4's review you
skipped in your previo
wm4:
>
I will not waste my and everybody's time answering these half-truths
directly.
I will, of course, continue to answer to people of good will.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:51:10 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> > How's that addressing his concerns?
>
> The answer I would have posted directly to his remarks would have been:
>
> # > Is all this complexity really justified?
> #
> # Yes, all
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> How's that addressing his concerns?
The answer I would have posted directly to his remarks would have been:
# > Is all this complexity really justified?
#
# Yes, all this complexity is really justified, including the "leaky
# abstraction", and
On 12/22/2016 12:16 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Thanks for stepping in.
>
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
>> And you ignored his.
>
> No, the reply was there:
> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-November/202768.html
>
> Not directly connected in the thread, but s
Thanks for stepping in.
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> And you ignored his.
No, the reply was there:
http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-November/202768.html
Not directly connected in the thread, but still a reply. No news from
wm4 since, until after the fact.
Re
On 12/22/2016 11:59 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
>> You ignored my review as well, for "a month" as you admit yourself
>> above.
>
> This is a lie. The last message in the discussion before the month gap
> was mine, not yours. You neglected to reply and wa
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:59:19 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> > You ignored my review as well, for "a month" as you admit yourself
> > above.
>
> This is a lie. The last message in the discussion before the month gap
> was mine, not yours. You neglecte
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> You ignored my review as well, for "a month" as you admit yourself
> above.
This is a lie. The last message in the discussion before the month gap
was mine, not yours. You neglected to reply and waited, not me.
If you ever ignore a review from me on pu
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:28:53 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> > You didn't respond to my concerns. There was no indication that
> > repeating my concerns would have changed anything. It was up to you.
>
> Repeating them would have changed noting indeed
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> You didn't respond to my concerns. There was no indication that
> repeating my concerns would have changed anything. It was up to you.
Repeating them would have changed noting indeed: still rude and
nonconstructive.
Rewording them would have been the r
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:52:23 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> > That is not true. They were all technical and concerns and I was polite
> > enough.
>
> No. And you had ample time to make your point between 2016-11-14 and
> 2016-12-18.
You didn't respo
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> That is not true. They were all technical and concerns and I was polite
> enough.
No. And you had ample time to make your point between 2016-11-14 and
2016-12-18.
> I will consider ignoring feature patch reviews from you as well, then.
Do not start a
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:33:20 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> > So this was pushed without addressing any of my concerns?
>
> Indeed, and you were warned.
>
> For reference for other readers, "my concerns" were matter of personal
> taste formulated as
Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> So this was pushed without addressing any of my concerns?
Indeed, and you were warned.
For reference for other readers, "my concerns" were matter of personal
taste formulated as nonconstructive passive-aggressive questions, and my
warning was:
http://f
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:08:51 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
> ---
So this was pushed without addressing any of my concerns?
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-de
Le primidi 1er nivôse, an CCXXV, Nicolas George a écrit :
> I thought I had got them all :( I will look into it.
That was silly. Fixed.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-de
Le primidi 1er nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> This patchset broke 83 fate tests using valgrind. Looks like memleaks.
>
> http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20161221122451&slot=x86_64-archlinux-gcc-valgrindundef
> http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20161221133057&slot=x86_64-arch
On 11/27/2016 1:08 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
> ---
> libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
> libavfilter/framequeue.c | 123 +
> libavfilter/framequeue.h | 173
> +++
> 3 files changed, 297 in
Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
---
libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
libavfilter/framequeue.c | 123 +
libavfilter/framequeue.h | 173 +++
3 files changed, 297 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 libavfilter/framequeue.c
cr
Le quartidi 24 brumaire, an CCXXV, wm4 a écrit :
> Nice, previous review was completely ignored.
Indeed. You told me yourself to do that when I consider your remarks
rude.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpe
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:10:20 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
> ---
> libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
> libavfilter/framequeue.c | 123 +
> libavfilter/framequeue.h | 173
> +++
> 3 files c
Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
---
libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
libavfilter/framequeue.c | 123 +
libavfilter/framequeue.h | 173 +++
3 files changed, 297 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 libavfilter/framequeue.c
cr
28 matches
Mail list logo
