Commit graph

7 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
55b39ae592 clean-up: retract usages of »time component access«
While these function may seem superficially plausible,
I more and more come to the conclusion that offering such
function as ''basic building blocks'' is in itself an
ill-guided approach to handling of time entities.

Time is neither „just a number“ — nor does it „contain“ hours, minutes and seconds.
It is possible to ''represent'' it through a **time-code**, which incurs
a quantisation step and implies a reference grid.

Thus Lumiera ''should not offer'' a »basic time handling library«.
Doing so would be just an invitation to bypass proper time handling
and avoid the use of more demanding but also more adequate mental concepts.

So the next step will be to remove functions not deemed adequate, and
better directly inline the respective modulus based computations.
Other functions can be integrated into the respective implementation
translation units for time quantisation and timecode representation.
2025-05-27 20:43:52 +02:00
d31d4295a4 clean-up: remove gavl_time_t as external dependency
Indeed — this change set is kind of sad.
Because I still admire the design of the GAVL library,
and would love to use it for processing of raw video.
However, up to now, we never got to the point of actually
doing so. For the future, I am not sure if there remains
room to rely on lib-GAVL, since FFmpeg roughly covers
a similar ground (and a lot beyond that). And providing
a plug-in for FFmpeg is unavoidable, practically speaking.

So I still retain the nominal dependency on lib-GAVL
in the Build system (since it is still packaged in Debian).

But it is pointless to rely on this library just for an
external type-def `gavl_time_t`. We owe much to this
inspiration, but it can be expected that we'll wrap
these raw time-values into a dedicated marker type
soon, and we certainly won't be exposing any C-style
interface for time calculations in future, since
we do not want anyone to side-step the Lumiera
time handling framework in favour of working
„just with plain numbers“


NOTE: lib-GAVL hompage has moved to Github:
      https://github.com/bplaum/gavl
2025-05-17 23:12:47 +02:00
806db414dd Copyright: clarify and simplify the file headers
* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
 * there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
 * Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+

== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''

The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!

The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
2024-11-17 23:42:55 +01:00
b4e0f6bf40 Doxygen: fill in the last missing file level comments for plain-C tests
now each and every source file should be marked with a @file doxygen comment
2017-02-22 03:46:23 +01:00
24b3bec4be Doxygen: prepare all unit tests for inclusion in the documentation
Doxygen will only process files with a @file documentation comment.
Up to now, none of our test code has such a comment, preventing the
cross-links to unit tests from working.

This is unfortunate, since unit tests, and even the code comments there,
can be considered as the most useful form of technical documentation.
Thus I'll start an initiative to fill in those missing comments automatically
2017-02-22 01:54:20 +01:00
dbc75fac7d Doxygen: we missed the plain C code 2016-11-03 18:26:43 +01:00
ada5cefaaf re-arrange tests according to layer structure
the buildsystem will now pick up and link
all test cases according to the layer, e.g.
backend tests will automatically be linked
against the backend + library solely.
2013-01-07 05:43:01 +01:00
Renamed from tests/library/test-time.c (Browse further)