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

[Wilawar]

I hope everyone is reading the version into which the editor of FastMail
didn’t insert additional line breaks – apparently I broke threading when
sending it, but it should be easy to find; unfortunately, I see no way
to add a 'References' tag (which I’ve seen being used on other lists)
to my mail, with which I could link the other one back in.

I also haven’t found a way to get a preview of the mail as it will be
sent, as sending it to me will render me unable to edit it afterwards,
copying the text into a new mail opens up new possibilities to fail.


> all I see are consistently formatted emails
> that has not received any complaint about readability.
Ok, maybe my point is so obvious that you just don’t see it.

>> 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.
How?

> 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.
I’ve been telling you that it was no use for me to do that.

> Unwilling to give you information?
You missed a 'more' and apparently, after that, just desynced.


> 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
> as).
> 
> 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).

You did not address the issue of line length at all nor have you, through
this whole conversation, managed to give me a positive instruction on
which to use; for this mail, I have tried wrapping at 72, as this seems
to be what you want. (!?) I find it hard to read, whatever.

As I already said on IRC but want to preserve for public record here:
You could have told me at some point that I should optimize my
mails for monospace rendering, yet that point never came up – quite
weird for something you consider _the major issue_, don’t you think?

On IRC, he replied with something along the lines of 'You should have
known that not everybody is using the same proportional font you use',
which is a straight strawman, as I never even implied that you all do.

It also doesn’t explain why he didn’t just make this explicit – on the
one hand, he said he had believed I had already known this, on the other,
I obviously didn’t. What!?

The hint about sending plaintext and HTML versions is useful, at least –
I assumed it was a deprecated approach that shouldn’t be used.
Although I would still have to make sure that the plaintext rendering is
OK, so there is not that much value in it for me …


> It is not limited to insertions of empty lines, but that could
> certainly help in some of the scenarios.
I merely don’t know more than that you are inserting lots of empty lines
even after small breaks; you missed a chance to tell me _why_ you are
doing this, to enable me to make informed decisions you can agree with
by myself, in the future.

>> 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.
For the record, I did not do that (and it’s not the first time you
accuse me of this) and it even somewhat contradicts the very citation
you are replying to.

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Does exactly what it says on the tin