On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27:30PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > Hi all, > > What is ffmpeg's policy on "necro-bumping" old patches? Or more > precisely, what is the policy of requesting a patch to be merged where > all objections raised have been addressed via discussion/updated > patches, and which have not been merged in over 2 weeks due to unknown > reasons? > > In particular, there are 2 patchsets I would like to get merged: > 1. This I consider an important patch, simply because it solves a trac > ticket labelled as "important": https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964, > which also contains links to the patches. A lot of discussion went on > around it on the mailing lists, and it is supported strongly by > Nicolas and me. Michael seemed initially hesitant but later became > convinced of (at least one of the set's) utility, and one of the > patches was applied. The only objection I recall was from Hendrik, > which was addressed by Nicolas in a follow-up. > > 2. This I consider much more trivial, but in this case there are no > remaining objections. However, I still consider it important enough > for a request to re-examine, as I am doing here. The patchset is more > recent, https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-August/177794.html > and https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-September/178700.html.
I don't like FFABSDIFF() patch because it creates a macro very much type specific, while all other FF macro around are type agnostic. -- Clément B.
pgpwfG580RMfP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
