[vlc-devel] [PATCH 04/48] hls: Support encryption

[Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen]

2012/1/10 Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi at remlab.net>:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:17:03 +0100, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen
> <beauze.h at gmail.com> wrote:
>> - I just try to apply Luc's patches as far as possible. However, it
>> was kind of a mess because the two trees diverged, and it wasn't clear
>> which patch came before the other.
>
>> - I have no opinion whatsoever about the patches. I just backported them
>
> So in other words, you are pushing patches that you did not even review
> yourself. On the one hand, this wastes the time of reviewers, annoys them
> and discourages further reviews. On the other hand, it makes the guy who
> posted third party patches look stupid for not seeing the many problems
> (while in truth, (s)he did not look at them).
>
> I think reviewers deserve to not be presented with unreviewed stuff. We
> are NOT PAID TO REVIEW PATCHES.
>
>> - I am not against dropping and rewrite them manually later, though
>> I'd rather have the patches applied to fix the issues later. For
>> instance, thread safety is already a big issue in the current code,
>> some work will be required whatever happens.
>
> This patches series has serious problems. I would not be surprised if the
> current HLS code was crap as I did not review it - on purpose. But this
> would make no difference.
>
> If the current code is crap, you are free to fix or rewrite it. Kludging
> it though will not yield anything good.
>

My point was : I applied these patches (which didn't work out of the
box for that matter) and reviewed them. I know there are some issues,
but after 48 patches I figured it would be good to ask for another
review before adding anything else. If you want me to fix everything,
while somebody else says there is way to much commit at this point, I
don't really know what to do...
The only thing I care about is improving the module. if it works
better with this patchset, then I'll send it for review.

-- 
Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen