[vlc-devel] [PATCH 12/13] vout/opengl: add a new API to configure fragment shaders

Filip Roséen filip at atch.se
Tue Dec 13 22:16:23 CET 2016

Hi Wilawar,

On 2016-12-13 21:55, Wilawar wrote:

> Formatting such as displayed there (which is, btw, also not a patch)?
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-October/109662.html
> Have a look at the author, please.

I am well aware of what messages I have sent on to `vlc-devel`, and
no; that message does not include a patch. The information posted is
however far more consise than what you have been doing in your
replies, and the formatting is (at least in my opinion) far easier to

> More precedence:
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-October/110086.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-December/110857.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-December/110841.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-December/110790.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-December/110769.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110721.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110708.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110704.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110632.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110488.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110585.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110521.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110509.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110507.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110504.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110243.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110238.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110236.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110144.html
> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-November/110450.html

I am not sure what you want the above list of messages to tell the
reader of your email, but all I see are consistently formatted emails
that has not received any complaint about readability.

If you are talking about the fact that the replies does not include a
patch, please see later segments of this email (as I am sure I will
address that at one point or another).

> I didn’t say git was too hard for me to use (do you want to imply again
> that I’m stupid?),

Nor did I.

> I said it was too cumbersome and I remain at that position. If you
> want to require me to use git and do the whole roundtripping dance
> just to point out a few typos and English corrections, I plainly
> won’t do that – which I feel like might be your true intent anyways.

No one said that you **had** to respond to a patch that way. My reply
was simply saying that it is certainly possible to reply using that
mechanism, and that the workflow is not overly complicated.

> Also, please leave the strawmans on the fields, no need to beat them up.

No comment.

> Then, I don’t get why you tell me to ask about formatting on the IRC
> channel when we talked about precisely this topic a few days ago and
> you were unwilling to give me more information back then – did you
> change your mind? If so, why do you still tell me to go looking
> through other mail?

Unwilling to give you information? That seems a bit harsh given that
I have been trying to help you with your formatting issues ever since
your first message to `vlc-devel` (and not just in-regards of emails).

 - https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2016-August/109065.html

I have been telling you to look at other mails on the mailing-list
given that these have not received the same sort of feedback as the
ones you are sending.

> After the topic had been raised, I’ve explicitly looked for
> formatting differences when I went through new messages on this
> list. I’ve noticed only two obvious differences: First, that many of
> you seem to end your lines either at around 80 or at around 72
> characters (as defined in some old advice) and second, that you seem
> to introduce many small paragraphs for no apparent reason.

I think the above speaks for itself.

> On this list, there doesn’t seem to be any hard limit on line length
> (there are also a couple of guys who use different lengths). It’s
> not really necessary either in this day and age, so I assumed it was
> just an old habit. If you wanted me to adhere to a limit of 72
> characters (80 doesn’t really make sense IIUC), you could have told
> me straight into my virtual face, right around the first time when I
> asked about formatting on the ML; I believe I even mentioned
> line-length explicitly (no, I won’t bother looking it up, I’ve
> already wasted enough time on this mail …).

It is not an old habit, mailing-lists in general follow the same
(sometimes unwritten) guidelines as the one we have on `vlc-devel`,
for several different reasons.

One of them being that since many of the messages on `vlc-devel`
contains patches, `monospace` rendering are used consistently (which
is the major problem with the formatting you are sending your emails

If you would like to have an alternative view of the message you are
sending, do what I do and send both `text/plain` and `text/html` (or
whatever it is that you prefer). Please, do not expect clients to
render `text/plain` with a proportional font (as you recently implied
on IRC).

> If, for some reason, it would help you with reading if I inserted an
> empty line every two sentences (this honestly seems to be the
> average case), I’d be willing to do that, although I dislike this
> style myself.

It is not limited to insertions of empty lines, but that could
certainly help in some of the scenarios.
> With all this said, I do take Thomas’ feedback seriously. I do not
> see any place where I’ve been overly verbose – the information which
> I thought should be there is there, no part is really superfluous –
> except maybe the very first sentence (the one about my original
> intent when writing this message), I could have omitted that one.

I will let someone else reply to this part given that you are now
implying (over IRC) that my opinion is one of a kind, and that no one
besides me see the issues I've previously described.

> I do not want to leave out the reasoning for changes (which was also
> relatively short), especially when they are about language, a very
> personal matter that is highly dependent on style and preference.

> I will read my previous mail again tomorrow, to get a more unbiased look
> on it, but I don’t expect to gain much
> from doing this, it didn’t help with my other mails in the past.
Sounds good to me!

Best Regards,\
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/attachments/20161213/b7b6fda8/attachment.html>

More information about the vlc-devel mailing list