[vlc-devel] [vlc-commits] packetizer/startcode_helper: enhance with AVX2
jnqnfe at gmail.com
jnqnfe at gmail.com
Mon Mar 18 22:40:56 CET 2019
adding to the email I sent an hour ago...
I have taken some time to review the mailing list, going as far back as
my earliest contributions (2017) and (ignoring this recent mess with
the AVX2 stuff) I can find little evidence of any mention at all of
patches I have submitted failing to compile, nor suggestion of
frustration felt towards me, nor have I found anything additional in
searching my inbox (again, I still have most or all of the unmerged
patches and they compile fine for me).
for you convenience I link below to all discussions found from jan 2017
to present (excluding this thread and todays patch submissions only),
though you are very welcome to review the month-by-month postings
- in #14 you mentioned that one patch failed to compile, (
), this was, as I explained, due to having built the patch on top of
another that was not merged; no sign of any frustration.
- in #19 you make an assumption about the patch "looking incomplete";
I mention not having compiled it; you reply indicating that you've thus
taken it to be a "yes" to this breaking things and that you're going to
ignore it and that removing things "always" breaks stuff; Marvin points
out a few things it possibly missed, which I then addressed
- in #35 you mention it failing to compile "Patch is giving ugly
warnings here" (
; we ultimately agree on the solution being problematic with respect to
exiting versions of PulseAudio and that we would put it aside to
- in #43 I proposed a purge of MMX, and you responded to say "Adding,
renaming or removing files requires distcheck. If you cannot even build
VLC, you should probably abstain." (
So, a couple of failures amongst it all (ignoring the recent big
one); no frustration or anything expressed from you nor anyone else; no
warnings that you're unhappy; nothing to warrant a great build up of
frustration for you to vent and have a go at me for as you have done.
I am now waiting on an apology...
the following is all more recent 2019 stuff, mostly todo with the AVX2
enhancements and such
- ignoring this discussion thread itself and todays patch submissions -
On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 20:12 +0000, jnqnfe at gmail.com wrote:
> If as you say I had indeed sent in a whole bunch of patches in the
> which have never compiled and caused a lot of wasted time, then I
> have to relent to your position being fair, but I do not believe that
> is actually the case.
> As I point out, there are a bunch of small patches I've sent in
> to git master, and most of what have not been merged I still have on
> local branch, all of which do compile!
> If time after time I had been sending in bad patches and you had been
> complaining and warning me over and over that they did not compile
> I was causing you frustration and wasting your time, then I am sure
> this would have dissuaded me by now from continuing until possible
> me to sort out my problems with respect to compiling.
> I do care very much about not wasting developer time or causing undue
> frustration, as I have already said, and I wish to get along with you
> all in accomplishing work on improving VLC. I am very grateful to JBK
> for his patience in working through the issues with the AVX2 related
> patch set, as I have said to him privately, I worked very hard and
> promptly to correct the mistakes he encountered or I noticed,
> ultimately addressing the compiling issue to ensure that none
> in the final revision I sent in, and I am embarrassed by the issue
> ended up on master that caused you a problem.
> Making your grievance known to me privately is not "doing me a
> I was not at all aware that you held such frustration towards me,
> despite your insistence that you've been repeatedly telling me so
> I disagree with, and as such it is only respectful to at least first
> so privately (though I get that you disagree with the idea of not
> having done so properly/sufficiently before and you're probably going
> to balk at the idea of respect); it is also a matter of compliance
> the community CoC regarding positive communication, which you are
> violating by taking up this personal problem with me publicly, and no
> matter how fair or not your feelings towards me they do not justify
> your going against the CoC.
> Since we completely disagree with how many times you have been
> notifying me of problems, I will endeavour to review mailing list
> communications that have taken place between the two of us since I
> started submitting patches, to help get at the truth factually. By
> means dig up those regarding this supposed series of problems you
> believe occurred. If indeed my memory is proven very bad then I will
> stand corrected and apologise.
> FYI, as a side note, the patches sent in a few minutes ago all
> On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 12:11 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le jeudi 14 mars 2019, 12:04:05 EET jnqnfe at gmail.com a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 18:54 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > > I don't care.
> > > >
> > > > I am very fed up with you and your persistent refusal to test
> > > > your
> > > > patches
> > > > before you submit them. I have warned you many times already.
> > > >
> > > > You don't want to follow the rules that everybody else does?
> > > >
> > > > Fine. Go away.
> > >
> > > Seriously?
> > >
> > > Firstly, I have to begin by questioning why you have published
> > > your
> > > grievance here publicly on the mailing list rather than speaking
> > > to
> > > me
> > > privately?
> > Seriously? Why should I give you such favor when you clearly don't
> > give a damn
> > about our processes?
> > > The recent problem aside (to which I am sympathetic to any
> > > frustration
> > > felt), I really do not understand how you can justify supposedly
> > > having
> > > built up this frustration towards me over time.
> > You've got to be kidding. I've lost count of how many times you
> > sent
> > a series
> > of patch that would not even compile. Do you have a damn clue how
> > much free
> > time I (and probably others) have wasted because of you?
> > > You have misrepresented and/or misunderstood my position here on
> > > the
> > > issue at hand; I believe that you are factually mistaken in how
> > > much
> > > you seem to recall "warning" me previously, indeed in the idea
> > > that
> > > you
> > > have even "warned" me at all in any regard rather than simply
> > > expressing dissatisfaction and discouragement at best; and I feel
> > > that
> > > your seemingly uncompromising attitude on this topic no matter it
> > > seems
> > > how trivial the patch is very much unreasonable.
> > So almost everybody except you compile-tests most of their patches.
> > If
> > somebody's unreasonable, that's you and your self-centered ways of
> > "contributing".
> > > I do not even really understand in what form you actually mean
> > > when
> > > it
> > > comes to "warning", which does not make it easy to respond to; do
> > > you
> > > mean in terms of playing with fire - that ultimately a bad patch
> > > was
> > > bound to result at some point - or warning me that if I kept it
> > > up
> > > that
> > > you'd start refusing to accept my contributions? Either way I do
> > > not
> > > accept that you have actually ever done either.
> > Selective memory much? I told you many times that your patches were
> > not
> > compiling. Not to mention that the patch submission guidelines are
> > painfully
> > clear about NOT doing what you do.
> > > To be very, very clear, should you not be reading this
> > > thoroughly,
> > > it
> > > is *not* the case that I was choosing to not compile, I was not
> > > in
> > > a
> > > position to, as I am certain I had originally stated.
> > I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL SITUATION.
> > That is your problem, not mine nor anybody else's here.
> > Either you follow the rules of our community, like everybody else
> > strives to,
> > or you leave.
More information about the vlc-devel