> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> softworkz .
> Sent: Montag, 14. April 2025 17:45
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
> Hello,
>
>
Hello,
this is a follow-up to the list of patches I had posted recently.
From those, I would like to push the following by the end of the week:
avformat/hls demuxer: Add WebVTT subtitle support
GitHub:https://github.com/ffstaging/FFmpeg/pull/53
Patchwork: https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/proj
t; > Marton
> > > > Balint
> > > > Sent: Sonntag, 6. April 2025 23:05
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > de...@ffmpeg.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
> > > >
> > >
Marton Balint (HE12025-04-09):
> Not showing pointer addresses also has benefits, such as easier diffability
> of output, or better human readability. It depends on actual use case which
> is "useful", so a logging flag completely makes sense to me to show or hide
> it, depending on what the user w
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Michael Niedermayer
> Sent: Mittwoch, 9. April 2025 00:25
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
> Hi
>
> On Sun, Apr 06,
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Marton
> Balint
Hi Marton,
> As for the question of the default behaviour, I don't have a strong
> opinion, both can make sense, maybe I would keep the existing behaviour
> for the library, but change the default for the cli tools
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025, Nicolas George wrote:
Marton Balint (HE12025-04-06):
I think a log flag to completely hide the addresses makes sense, and can be
implemented cleanly and reliably in avutil/log. I can totally support that.
I do not. The more I think on it, the more I consider this whole
> >> Balint
> > >> Sent: Mittwoch, 2. April 2025 21:45
> > >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > de...@ffmpeg.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Montag, 7. April 2025 11:14
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
> Marton Balint (HE12025-04-06):
> &g
Marton Balint (HE12025-04-06):
> I think a log flag to completely hide the addresses makes sense, and can be
> implemented cleanly and reliably in avutil/log. I can totally support that.
I do not. The more I think on it, the more I consider this whole
endeavour is completely misguided.
One of our
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Marton
> Balint
> Sent: Sonntag, 6. April 2025 23:05
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
>
>
> On
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, softworkz . wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Marton
Balint
Sent: Mittwoch, 2. April 2025 21:45
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, softworkz .
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Marton
> Balint
> Sent: Mittwoch, 2. April 2025 21:45
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, softwo
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, softworkz . wrote:
Hello everybody,
with freshly gained push access rights, I want to act responsibly and
carefully, and also avoid unexpected surprises so I'm not going to rush
things. Due to that change, I thought it might be good to post an
overview of the patchsets
Hello everybody,
with freshly gained push access rights, I want to act responsibly and
carefully, and also avoid unexpected surprises so I'm not going to rush things.
Due to that change, I thought it might be good to post an overview of the
patchsets I am intending to push in the near future:
15 matches
Mail list logo
