<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:03, Jason Garrett-Glaser <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:darkshikari@gmail.com">darkshikari@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:55 AM, aviad rozenhek <<a href="mailto:aviadr1@gmail.com">aviadr1@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The problem is that this changes the way the presets work. Currently:<br>
>><br>
>> preset is applied<br>
>><br>
>> tune is applied<br>
>><br>
>> all other settings are applied<br>
>><br>
>> profile is applied<br>
>><br>
>> Your method makes them applied in commandline order, which may confuse<br>
>> some users (especially with regard to --profile). It would make more<br>
>> sense, IMO, to have param_default() take a preset and tuning as an<br>
>> argument, for example.<br>
>><br>
>> Dark Shikari<br>
><br>
> I left the logic in x264.c intact, so preset, tune. other_settings,<br>
> profiles are still applied in order.<br>
> so they are not applied in commandline order.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Yes, but the order will still be different when used from *other*<br>
applications, which will only serve to confuse users.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Dark Shikari<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>as an application developer myself, I already have similar parameter-order logic in my application, since even before the introduction of the --preset, --tune flags to x264.</div>
<div>the only difference is that without this patch I need to maintain presets myself and find it hard to compare my application's settings with commandline settings,</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div></div>Aviad Rozenhek<br>
</div>