[vlc-devel] [vlc-commits] modules: store object name in a variable

Tue Mar 5 10:35:05 CET 2019

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, at 10:28, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> I don't mean "you" as just your individuality as opposed to the group. I mean you as in the group including you, as opposed to the group excluding you (because you weren't there, or hypothetically because you'd left).
> 
> And I have been disentangling VLC object and fixing threads for over a decade (quite often they are two sides of the same coin). I am not the least bit interested in giving up so close. But if the tech commitee out-votes me, I will stop caring.
> 
> I wouldn't want to be using a thread sanitizer if this happens though. In fact, I don't think I would want to use VLC on an SMP system at all.

Why ? VLC object variables are thread safe, no ? There is just a TOCTOU issue. I guess that's OK if it's used only for debugging.

> 
> Le 5 mars 2019 11:12:52 GMT+02:00, Thomas Guillem <thomas at gllm.fr> a écrit :
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, at 10:02, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>> Yeah. And we never agreed to un-deprecate object names and allow them to be used by plugins back again. And I did even remind of the deprecation at the last workshop less than two weeks ago - not exactly a surprise.
>> 
>> We didn't decided to break the QT module dialog. This feature is very very useful for user support, I don't think we can't ride of it.
>> 
>> And yes, It happens to me a lot: I decide to a technical solution, I try to implement it and I encounter something I didn't planned.
>> 
>> For me, module_t still need to be tied to vlc_object_t
>> 
>>> 
>>> What you want is that all changes are agreed upon by you. That's not what we agreed.
>> 
>> Not me, but us. If developers that are doing a lot more user support than me (Francois, Steve, Hugo and JB) agree to kill the QT module dialog, I won't be against the common decision.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 5 mars 2019 10:48:21 GMT+02:00, Thomas Guillem <thomas at gllm.fr> a écrit :
>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, at 09:43, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>>>> No. I am not accountable for bugs pushed by Antoine (object names), the other Rémi (Qt objects tree) and François (adding code using a feature that's already deprecated and of course without review).
>>>> 
>>>> And that is why, we decided to always go to the mailing list when we add/remove new features or modify the VLC/LibVLC core API. It's useless to lament on what was done on the past or find a culprit for bad things that were done a *long* time ago.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unlike you, I have spent days trying to fix these things with variable success. And now, you are preventing me from fixing that for good.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So if somebody's accountable, it's you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 5 mars 2019 10:17:34 GMT+02:00, Steve Lhomme <robux4 at ycbcr.xyz> a écrit :
>>>>>> On 3/5/2019 8:52 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>>>>>> I am not going to hold your hand running git-log or git-blame. The 
>>>>>>> facts are there, you just don't care to look for them preferring to 
>>>>>>> band against me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You're accountable for the things you push on VLC just like the rest of 
>>>>>> us. If people disagree with a change you made without discussing you 
>>>>>> have to explain why, just like the rest of us. Saying it was already 
>>>>>> discussed 10 years ago (as a flamewar, so definitely not in the SVN 
>>>>>> logs) with other people is not a way to collaborate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>  And it's not exactly rocket science that introspection does not work 
>>>>>>>  across threads - in general, not just in VLC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Le 5 mars 2019 09:03:43 GMT+02:00, Steve Lhomme <robux4 at ycbcr.xyz> a 
>>>>>>>  écrit :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      On 3/4/2019 9:51 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>          Decreeing that discussions older than 3 is irrelevant is
>>>>>>>          ridiculous. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      Yes and no. Valid points many years ago are likely to be valid today.
>>>>>>>      But if we're not presented with them there is no way to know. The code
>>>>>>>      has changed a lot in the last few years and will continue to do so. Some
>>>>>>>      things that used to be true may not be anymore and vice versa. But we
>>>>>>>      need the facts, not "it was discussed 9 years ago, end of discussion".     vlc-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>      To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
>>>>>>>      https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  -- 
>>>>>>>  Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez 
>>>>>>>  excuser ma brièveté. vlc-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>  To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
>>>>>>>  https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
>>>>>> vlc-devel mailing list
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
>>>>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté. 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> vlc-devel mailing list
>>>>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
>>>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté. 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vlc-devel mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté. 
> _______________________________________________
> vlc-devel mailing list
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/attachments/20190305/77b60508/attachment.html>