On 20.05.2019, at 09:23, Mathieu Duponchelle <math...@centricular.com> wrote:
> Thanks :) > > On 5/19/19 7:00 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote: >> Hello Paul, >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:44 AM Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 5/17/19, Mathieu Duponchelle <math...@centricular.com> wrote: >>>> There isn't one, as I said the added indentation is because of the new >>>> loop! >>> To get this committed to tree you need to comply to review requests. >> I think Mathieu's point is that the code indentation change was not >> cosmetic - it's because the code in question is now inside a for loop, >> and thus it needed to be indented another level. >> >> Are you suggesting he should make a patch which results in the >> indentation being wrong, and then submit a second patch which fixes >> the incorrect indentation introduced by the first patch? I think it should probably be up to the maintainer, but possibly yes. A lot of review still happens primarily by email, and if you re-indent code it becomes impossible to see what, if anything, you changed in that block. Enabling reviews of the patch via email means not re-indenting even if it becomes "wrong". Not everyone does reviews that way though, so some maintainers nowadays might prefer it differently? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
