On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:41:29AM -0800, Lou Logan wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016, at 09:49 AM, Bodecs Bela wrote: > > > > under review: someone marked it because he/she investigate this patch. > > So the patch submitter and other potential reviewers may feel/be_sure > > that this patch is already handled by someone else. > > I suggest to use it. This is psychologic aspect that the patch submitter > > may feel more patienty toward review process opposite to mere "new" > > state. > > In my opinion that seems like unnecessary extra work. All patches in > theory are to be "under review". Reviewing takes enough time, > initiative, and motivation as is, and adding another, potentially > superfluous step just over complicates it. > > Perhaps "Under Review" can just be removed, disabled, hidden, or > documented as "this option is ignored". Same with "Deferred" and > "Awaiting Upstream".
Removed "Under Review" and "Awaiting Upstream" Theres a patch with "Deferred" state, this would need to be changed first [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
