| 1 |
On 17/01/2013 06:31, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The tree definately isn't ready for libav so +1 from me, I almost |
| 5 |
> changed it back myself already but to avoid stupid commit wars didn't. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I disagree with "the tree isn't ready for libav" — I can add myself to |
| 8 |
Ben and Alexander on having used libav for a long time at this point |
| 9 |
(given I'm also one of the original split team!). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
But also, if you say that the tree isn't ready because of the bugs I |
| 12 |
opened — remember that I'm not going to test ffmpeg any time soon. I do |
| 13 |
reserve the right to not give a damn about software whose authors |
| 14 |
insulted me more than a few times so ffmpeg is blacklisted on my |
| 15 |
tinderbox. All the tree is tested with libav — and most of it works |
| 16 |
fine, with the exception of libav-9 (because of the new API). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Interestingly enough, ffmpeg-0.11/1 has mostly same problems as libav-9, |
| 19 |
so the bugs can easily be shared across the two, so if it's not ready |
| 20 |
for one, it can't be ready for the other. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 24 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives