Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

Le 23 novembre 2024 01:19:12 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : >Hi Remi > >On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:04:50PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: >> Le perjantaina 22. marraskuuta 2024, 20.45.39 EET Michael Niedermayer a >> écrit >[...] >> > not just treat it as if split out means deleti

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 6:19 PM Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Obviously if people do not want it, then it wont happen. It would have been > nice if the people would have spoken up in the last 9 months and not waited > until after work had already started. > It would have been nice that STF funds

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

Hi Remi On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:04:50PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le perjantaina 22. marraskuuta 2024, 20.45.39 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit [...] > > not just treat it as if split out means deleting it from ffmpeg. > > Err, but yes. From the perspective of FFmpeg-devel, once lib

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

Le perjantaina 22. marraskuuta 2024, 20.45.39 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > How much do you charge to split out libpostproc ? > > Note you _have to_ maintain the code afterwards, Who says that it has to be maintained, how and why? > not just treat it as if split out means deleting it from

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 1:45 PM Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > Hi Derek, > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:04 AM Derek Buitenhuis < > derek.buitenh...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > This work was very easy and not worth even remotely close to 5K

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

Le perjantaina 22. marraskuuta 2024, 14.38.01 EET Derek Buitenhuis a écrit : > I do not accept this warning, and I do not agree with your reasoning. As somebody who participated in that thread and made similar arguments, I find the response utterly ridiculous. What is even supposed to be provocat

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 03:20:44PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Derek Buitenhuis (2024-11-22 13:38:01) > > I do not accept this warning, and I do not agree with your reasoning. > > > > The entire point of that thread was paid work, and cost matters. I worded > > in an entirelty legitimate

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

Quoting Derek Buitenhuis (2024-11-22 13:38:01) > I do not accept this warning, and I do not agree with your reasoning. > > The entire point of that thread was paid work, and cost matters. I worded > in an entirelty legitimate way. > > The fact that all the BS that has happened on this list since

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

On 11/22/2024 12:41 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > I do not agree with you on many things, including what you said on the > criticised mail, but I fully agree with you that this intervention of a > CC member is entirely inappropriate and abusive. There are many things I've said lately that the CC cou

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Fwd: [RFC] libpostproc splitout

Derek Buitenhuis (12024-11-22): > I do not accept this warning, and I do not agree with your reasoning. > > The entire point of that thread was paid work, and cost matters. I worded > in an entirelty legitimate way. I do not agree with you on many things, including what you said on the criticised