[vlc-devel] [PATCH 00/14] Move VLM implementation to a module

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, at 22:28, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le tiistaina 15. syyskuuta 2020, 23.13.17 EEST Jean-Baptiste Kempf a écrit :
> > On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, at 20:10, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > Le tiistaina 15. syyskuuta 2020, 20.37.32 EEST Romain Vimont a écrit :
> > > > This removes a lot of VLM code (including parsing) from libvlccore.
> > > 
> > > What is the actual point of this?
> > 
> > At some point, we cannot go on like that.
> 
> Yeah. You (and others) have got to stop accusing me of removing VLM all the 
> time.

This is not just about VLM.

> > You refuse to allow any incremental change
> 
> Seriously what the bloody hell? You're the one that rejected the last proposed 
> incremental change to VLM. And *you* have failed to even support your 
> assertions back then, which were ostensibly false.

Which  proposal?

> I proposed to remove the completely broken VLM schedules and retain the clunky 
> but mostly not broken VLM broadcasts. I'd still like to know what OS supports 
> VLM and does not support some form of scheduled tasks...

Numerous versions of Windows 10, for example.
macOS scheduling is very hard to do, for normal users.

> > on and any approach around VLM,
> > because you've decided that you don't want VLM in VLC (because it is
> > broken, according to you) and because it is in the core. 
> 
> You've got to stop putting words in my mouth.

"Let VLM die the quiet death that it deserves."

> > you block moving it outside of the core to make a simpler core
> 
> More BS. This patchset is making things more complicated.

I disagree. It removes parsers from the core and removes a lot of the ifdef HAVE_VLM.

> > and simpler evolution...
> 
> There's no evolution here. All it seems to do is move code around, adding one 
> layer of indirection, and *breaking* the log prefixes.

Because one need to improve step by step.

> > This is going on and on, and not just about VLM, and this is not acceptable
> > to me.
> 
> What is unacceptable here is your repeated behaviour of throwing false 
> accusations and nonsensical arguments against people (especially but not 
> limited to me) that don't go Your Way.

That's very rich.
You reject literally everything that does not fit your view of "brokenness/correctness", and OSes or protocols that are not "correct".
We've had this discussion over and over and over, over the years. At some point, be a force of proposal, and not just rejectsion.


-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
+33 672 704 734