[mythtv-users] How to raise priority of ticket 13459?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

On 11/11/19 10:48, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 9:44 PM Eyal Lebedinsky <eyal at eyal.emu.id.au> wrote:
> 
> Random suggestions follow.....
> 
>> Does anyone know a workaround?
> 
> Try the devel/2019-render branch, where a lot
> of the playback code has changed.  If it is not
> reproducible there, no one is likely to investigate
> legacy code (for the legacy code is all going away
> RSN).
> 
> And try transcoding your NUVs to a more common
> container rather than something that is (in practice)
> EOL(*).  There are even utilities to do so.

There are just too many of these (nuv files) and I think that
asking users to "just transcode" everything when a new format
is adopted is not the best approach.

>> How do I make this ticket more visible to developers?
> 
> Provide a patch.  If it impacts lots of others,
> someone should be able to provide a patch,
> or create a git bisect to identify the exact change
> (be aware that if it is in a FFMpeg merge you
> will need to do a git bisect on FFMpeg).
> 
>> What extra information will help?
> 
> As mentioned above, git bisect.  Asking someone
> else to do that work for you is not entirely likely
> to help things move forward.
> 
> Opening tickets when you encounter issues
> is the right thing to do,

I did not open this ticket but would have is it was not there.

> but expecting anyone
> else to re-prioritize your particular issue by
> continuously saying "Hey, look at me" is not
> the way to go for open source projects which
> are based on volunteers addressing their
> itch
Regarding "continuously", I only asked once (on the ticket)
since it seems this is not only the OP that has the problem.

I will go further and suggest that if the developers do not intend
to fix this (which they might) then they should indicate this on
the ticket. This is why there is "status", "milestone" and "resolution".

> (*) When MythTV is the "definitive" definition
> of a container format (i.e. the last one standing),
> one needs to seriously believe that it should be
> considered dead.  If it was up to me I would
> abandon the NUV format entirely.

I abandoned nuv years ago (mid 2014), but I have many (2699)
earlier recordings in this format (which was the standard then).

-- 
Eyal Lebedinsky (eyal at eyal.emu.id.au)