On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:58:50 +0200 Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/09/14 18:05, Antonio Ospite wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:26:13 +0200 > > Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 08/09/14 13:39, Antonio Ospite wrote: [...] > >> The patch makes sense (pending some editorial work as per > >> https://wiki.libav.org/GitCommit), thanks a lot. > >> > > > > What is missing? > > The tags must be a single word so > > x11grab: > > is a valid tag > > avdevice/x11grab not > I see, I modeled the commit message after those from ffmpeg, that's why I put the subsystem in the patch namespace. BTW, I noticed that in libav, after my patch, in some cases, I didn't get the cursor drawn on the captured image, while with ffmpeg I did. I didn't investigate the exact details, but AFAICS this behavior depends on some fixes which are in ffmpeg but not in libav, namely: http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=commitdiff;h=469a65b1502505cb8f46938b1b316e4c17a2f2a0 http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=commitdiff;h=1ee8fadb811f3b1ef370c7d6c7bf62088f1cc954 FWIW this fix looks good to have too: http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=commitdiff;h=a65c0a3fe822386be30fd3371af9f0d008b02874 In the future I think I'll just prepare patches for one project (either libav or ffmpeg), it's not funny at all to deal with two diverging codebases. [...] > If you want to have the look on xcbgrab would be great (since it should > have the same issue). > I might take a look, just please let me know when the code is in the git repository, I'd rather not work on some floating patch which may be superseded. Ciao ciao, Antonio -- Antonio Ospite http://ao2.it A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
