Re: RTSP client in vlc 2.1

On 15 Dec, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote :
> > Wow! Clearly live555 is very open...
> > So much open that you must yourself create a repository...
> 
> I was talking about openness of the project towards its users reports,
> not the openness of the development model.

Yeah, let's redefine terms.

> >> And I daresay I find live555 sources to have a way more manageable size
> >> than those of vlc, which is why I did not even attempt to fix myself the
> > 
> > Comparing a library supporting one protocol to a full media framework
> > supported dozens of protocols, hundreds of formats and codecs, in term
> > of code size.
> > Nice trolling.
> 
> Indeed. But you are not bad at that game yourself. You forget to answer
> all the remarks that embarrass you. Like the report on the effects of
> network jitter on playback of timestamped sources, or the remark that

Sorry, I don't know all codebase of VLC and all issues, notably the
live555 part.

> the user mailing list address is still available on the web site,
> whereas you claim that it is not appropriate, not to mention the fact

- https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc/2012-February/020611.html
- The introduction mail when you subscribe should have told you
- Any look at the archives of this list should have told you it's almost
  dead. Compare the amount of messages per month compared to any other
  mailing-list like vlc-devel, for eg.

> that you could have said that in answer to my first post, instead of
> waiting for the tone to have become ridiculously over-aggressive.

Your answer to me was overly aggressive.

> >> defects of vlc as an RTSP client and came to this (user) list.
> > 
> > lol. If, instead of trolling, you had given a look at VLC source code,
> > you would have seen that the RTSP client module is just a single file
> > of 2000 LoC.
> > 
> > Oh, and you have the history of all changes that could impact it:
> > http://git.videolan.org/?p=vlc.git;a=history;f=modules/access/live555.cpp;hb=HEAD
> > And there are not many changes since the 2.0.x fork...
> 
> Well, I asked for pointers, you could not send them. Now that I became
> aggressive you give them to me. So, maybe becoming aggressive was useful
> after all?

No, your first answer to me was the aggressive one.

I tell you that it's unlikely to get fixed unless someone does a patch
and your answer was that I refuse to fix it.
I've help hundreds of people fixing bugs of VLC and I've merged more
people patches in VLC that any other person...

> > Moreover, when people tell you that you probably should fix it yourself,
> > which you obviously have the skills to do, you turn into bersek mode and
> > full aggressivity.
> > Not to mention that this is probably just a revert to do.
> > 
> > So yes, please write your own RTSP client (that I hope will be under
> > 2000 lines of code, of course! With full subtitles rendering!) and don't
> > use VLC.
> 
> I already have a player with an RTSP client, and it takes 1 line of
> code, because I simply pass the RTSP URL to avformat_open_input, as I do
> any other.

Please keep doing that. And of course, there is no need to set avformat
or to control it...

Oh, btw, we also have an avio/avformat module in VLC... We use it for
RTMP, and it's not even 500 LoC.

> Like I said in the original report, mostly for fun, I am developing a
> server to stream videos using the RTSP protocol, from an internet
> connected server to my PC through a DSL line. After several monthes of
> trials (which would tend to disprove your claims about my skills), I
> finally come to a solution which works well, but has issues with vlc, I
> know that the server works well, because it works fine with ffplay for
> instance.

You also said that VLC 2.1 does not work while 2.0 worked.
Finding the right commit is probably not hard knowing your skills.
And would help everyone.

> anyway, I decide that I should help fixing vlc. Maintaining myself a

No, you did not offer that. You attacked me when I suggested that you
fix it yourself to help the community.

> Then the only help I get is from the live555 maintainer, which should
> not even have got involved, then a laconic:
> 
> "we will not fix it, send a patch", not even answering the second, more
> serious bug.

You are a basic troll.
The quote said differently: "Unless you share a patch, I doubt it will get
fixed"...

And indeed, who do you think people fixing bugs are? Magicians?
No, people like you who know a problem and have the skills to fix it.

The core dev team of VLC is extremly limited, and we have very low time.
So, yes, minor issues are not priotorized.

> to which I answer "your answer is demotivating, your code is scary, send
> me pointers to get my feet wet", at which point you simply decide to not
> send me the pointers. Then yes, I became aggressive, and I should not have.

No, your first mail to me was aggressive. I refuse to answer to those
people.

> So if you are wondering why I do not want to contribute to vlc, lack of
> time, code size, and architectures questions aside, well, then look at
> how poorly you seem to have handled a report which from my point of view
> was more than adequate.

Fine. Have fun!


-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf
http://www.jbkempf.com/ - +33 672 704 734
Sent from my Electronic Device
______________________________________________________
vlc mailing list
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc