On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:15:53PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Because some parts were ok'd, some parts were rejected while they were > >> actually ok, some parts needed to be redone. It was too confusing for > >> me, I preferred a clean slate. > > > > Then the uncontroversial OKed bits wouldn't clutter up further reviews. > > Now, more on the constructive part, I don't see how they clutter up > further reviews since they were completely unchanged.
I've done the reviews of this patch series (and found serious issues in the process), so I guess you can trust my judgement in this case. Every time a new revision comes along I have to doublecheck which bits are OK and which are not, for all the bits in the patch. The larger the patch, the harder this is. Reviewer time is precious, so the onus is on the patch submitter to ease the reviewer's burden. > it's not doing much more than adding if > (!something) return AVERROR(ENOMEM) in a few sweetspots. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple, as these review rounds should have shown. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
