On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:54:19PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: >>>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > Hi Ganesh, >>>> > > >>>> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> >>>> > > 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. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > Trivial patches can be merged after 24-48 hours if there's no >>>> > > objections >>>> > > outstanding. For more elaborate patches, poke anyone for review if you >>>> > > feel >>>> > > it would be helpful. >>>> > > >>>> > > In both cases, having push access yourself will hurry this along (i.e. >>>> > > you >>>> > > really should get push access), but in this case I will push later >>>> > > today. >>>> > > If you don't want push access, poke one of us on IRC to do the push for >>>> > > you, or bump the original email with a "poke" or "ping". >>>> > >>>> > Thanks. Patches for 2) needs work, and I will be posting it soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> > Patch for 1) should be ok (it was reviewed by Nicolas, and Michael >>>> > seems ok with it like I mentioned). >>>> >>>> there where a few patches, iam not exactly sure which are left and >>>> what effects they have >>> >>>> What i objected to and still object to is to cause the terminal to >>> >>> i withdraw my objection, ill leave it to others to decide which way is >>> better. Some arguments in this thread have sort of changed my oppinion >>> from prefering the heuristic to being undecided on what is better >> >> Ping, any other opinions? > > It has been a week with no standing objections (Michael withdrew his). > Further, there have not been any additional comments. Hence, a ping to > apply https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-July/176481.html. > More discussion and context: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964. >
Please ping the actual thread of the patch, and not some seemingly unrelated thread, so people are actually aware of the topic at hand. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
