Hi
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 09:22:29PM +, softworkz . wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Michael
> > Niedermayer
> > Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 21:35
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > Subject
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Nicolas
> George
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 12:50
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
> softworkz . (HE12025-06-02):
> > The w
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 21:35
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
Hi,
> The CC needs someone who is good
Hi Nicolas
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 09:57:34AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer (HE12025-06-02):
> > Id like you to be in the next community committee. (together with marth64)
>
> Sorry, but Are you out of your mind?
probably ;)
is that surprising after so many years here ?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Nicolas
> George
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 12:50
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
> softworkz . (HE12025-06-02):
> > The w
softworkz . (HE12025-06-02):
> The way I'm responding to NG is in no way how I am personally.
> I am writing that way because I _can_ write that way and I think
> he deserves to be responded that way, even more after the CC had
> officially stated that they concluded that there's nothing they
> ca
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of softworkz .
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 11:31
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Nicolas
> George
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 09:58
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
> Michael Niedermayer (HE12025-06-02):
Michael Niedermayer (HE12025-06-02):
> Id like you to be in the next community committee. (together with marth64)
Sorry, but Are you out of your mind?
> Because it seems you seriously care about stoping defamations and the
> general sozial backstabbing that has appeared in the recent decade
“See
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Mark
> Thompson
> Sent: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 22:26
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
Hi Mark,
Here are my answers to the remaining points:
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Mark
> Thompson
> Sent: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 22:26
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
Hello Mark,
(I've re-ordered some parts to unclutter th
An additional note:
While there are opinionated elements of course, I have tried to keep
everything factually correct in this series of messaged to the best
of my knowledge.
If somebody thinks that I would have told anything that is clearly
untrue, please let me know.
Then I will correct and
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 01:22
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 0
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 05:34:14PM +, softworkz . wrote:
> CONCLUSIONS
> ===
>
> Meanwhile it should have become clear that this conversation is not about
> whether the 15/15 patchset gets or should have gotten included or not.
> It's about the things that happened around it and how th
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of softworkz .
> Sent: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 22:09
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Leo Izen
> Sent: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 21:31
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
>
> On 5/28/25 11:24, softworkz . wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
>
On 31/05/2025 19:28, softworkz . wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Mark
>> Thompson
>> Sent: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 18:21
>> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patc
On 31 May 2025, at 21:31, Leo Izen wrote:
> On 5/28/25 11:24, softworkz . wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> it's about 14 days ago, on Thursday, 2025-05-15, when I had applied
>> my "Execution Graph Printing" patchset after 12 revisions and 3
>> reminder e-mails sent to the ML.
>
> Please, as a
On 5/28/25 11:24, softworkz . wrote:
Hello everybody,
it's about 14 days ago, on Thursday, 2025-05-15, when I had applied
my "Execution Graph Printing" patchset after 12 revisions and 3
reminder e-mails sent to the ML.
Please, as a bystander here who was not involved in the review or the
di
>
> Let's get to the cast of the final chapter:
>
> - Lynne
> - Nicolas George
> - Kieran Kunyar
>
> The fact all of us (who normally disagree on various technical topics)
agree about the deficiencies of your patch speaks volumes.
Kieran
>
___
ffmpeg-de
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Mark
> Thompson
> Sent: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 18:21
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
> On 31/05/2025 12:44, softworkz . wrote:
> >> -Origin
CONCLUSIONS
===
Meanwhile it should have become clear that this conversation is not about
whether the 15/15 patchset gets or should have gotten included or not.
It's about the things that happened around it and how they happened:
=> False statements like I would have pushed without addres
(this is the 2nd last message)
Final Chapter
=
Some people here don't like me - that's okay. I'm honest, direct,
I say what I'm thinking, often not very diplomatic, and I know which
results it causes sometimes.
But that a few people kind-of tried campaigning against me - even
ne
On 31/05/2025 12:44, softworkz . wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of softworkz .
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2025 04:59
>> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of softworkz .
> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2025 04:59
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
Two and a half days have passed and nobody has answered any
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2025 16:44
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
softworkz . (HE12025-05-28):
>Also, I cannot
> consider people as trustworthy while they are going crazy.
Oh, yes, I dare say insulting your betters is the best strategy.
I have no qualms saying « your betters » since I was barely involved in
this
softworkz . (HE12025-05-29):
> That nobody has responded is not much surprising
Yes, nobody responded after less than twelve hours, that must be a
conspiracy.
--
Nicolas George
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> softworkz .
> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025 17:25
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
[..]
That nobody has responded is not much surprising, but don't worr
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Marton Balint
> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025 20:28
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28
On Wed, 28 May 2025, softworkz . wrote:
Please note:
I have no intentions towards getting this merged.
It's a valid opinion when you think that "ffmpeg shouldn't
launch a browser" or similar - but that's not the topic.
This is merely a technical question.
"ffmpeg should not launch a brows
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> softworkz .
> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025 20:01
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
>
>
> > -Or
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Rémi
> Denis-Courmont
> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025 19:34
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
>
> Hi,
>
>
Hi,
Whatever glibc does or doesn't do is kinda irrelevant. FFmpeg is supposed to be
portable and that makes `system()` a non-starter given how bad it *can* be.
With that said, and with my CC hat on, if you would consider a portably safer
alternative, I can only say that considering what strong
34 matches
Mail list logo
