Removing v4 (draft) related stuff. #93
Conversation
|
We should ensure this data doesn't get lost. I think better to wait a bit before forking this doc to start on a v4-specific specification, but perhaps for the meanwhile these removals should be accompanied by moving that info to a v4_notes.md document or into the issue tracker. |
|
v4_notes.md added, may need a rebase after #95. |
v4_notes.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ | |||
| # Notes for Version 4 | |||
|
|
|||
| `slice_coding_mode` was defined in a former version of the spec, it could be peek for a former version (<201-01-04) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
2018?
Also I suggest to link to the commit with the removal in the note, i.e. 046648b.
| @@ -803,10 +803,6 @@ SliceHeader( ) { | | |||
| picture_structure | ur | |||
| sar_num | ur | |||
| sar_den | ur | |||
| if (version >= 4) { | | |||
| reset_contexts | br | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If reset_contexts is removed here, there remain a few stranded references to it.
JeromeMartinez
force-pushed
the
v3only
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5c96576
to
21ee5b8
Compare
|
PR updated with |
|
This patch also leaves a stray reference to reset_contexts in the restrictions section. |
Oops, fixed. |
Should be put back in the a v4 branch, with more definitions (e.g. "PCM")
|
Rebased. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ | |||
| # Notes for Version 4 | |||
|
|
|||
| `reset_contexts` and `slice_coding_mode` were defined in a former version of the spec, it could be peek for a former version (<2018-01-04), commit d712fd1. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could give the link to the commit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chicken and egg: the reference Git repo is https://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git and it does not have the commit yet.
Same for https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1 (a mirror) master branch, the only link available is in the PR 0fe8b02 and I am reluctant to link to a GitHub PR commit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, thanks, understood! I was thinking that a live link is more useful…
|
Isnt there some syntax with which these could be removed at "make" time ? so it all would stay in one place. That would ensure its not lost |
|
@michaelni that's may be a better idea for maintenance. We could reuse the process we have for math ( |
|
Question: Is it useful to have |
|
@retokromer imho a discussion on having V1 and V3 separated would have been better at the time the cellar charter was reviewed and approved. I suggest to follow https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cellar/ and not separate V1 and V3. |
|
@JeromeMartinez are you in favoring of closing this in consideration of #102? |
|
superseded by #102 |
My proposal was meant only for practical reasons. I don’t need it myself anymore, as I already do have fast encoders for both v1 and v3, but I would have been grateful for having it when I programmed that stuff. And, to avoid any misunderstanding, I am very fine with not separating them. |
Should be put back in the a v4 branch, with more definitions (e.g. "PCM").
Issue reported by @dwbuiten