On 23/05/2019 23:58, Darren Mo wrote:
> To clarify, do you mean we should merge this now or wait for the second
> patch, which fixes the root cause?
I have no strong opinion on it. Unsure which is better for a user experience,
given they'll both be broken in some way.
I'd say merge if you feel
To clarify, do you mean we should merge this now or wait for the second patch,
which fixes the root cause?
> On May 23, 2019, at 10:12 AM, Derek Buitenhuis
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/05/2019 18:55, Darren Mo wrote:
>> Good question. The subtitle would be discarded if it overlaps an edit
>>
On 22/05/2019 18:55, Darren Mo wrote:
> Good question. The subtitle would be discarded if it overlaps an edit
> boundary.
>
> The root cause is the MOV demuxer currently marks boundary packets for
> discard. However, due to subtitle frames not being discarded (fixed by this
> patch), the root
Good question. The subtitle would be discarded if it overlaps an edit boundary.
The root cause is the MOV demuxer currently marks boundary packets for discard.
However, due to subtitle frames not being discarded (fixed by this patch), the
root cause is hidden. A potential fix for the root cause
On 29/04/2019 23:45, fumoboy007 wrote:
> One situation where a subtitle packet can be marked for discard is when
> demuxing an MOV file that has an edit list.
> ---
> libavcodec/decode.c | 10 --
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Will this work properly if a given
Bump.
> On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:45 PM, fumoboy007 wrote:
>
> One situation where a subtitle packet can be marked for discard is when
> demuxing an MOV file that has an edit list.
> ---
> libavcodec/decode.c | 10 --
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
One situation where a subtitle packet can be marked for discard is when
demuxing an MOV file that has an edit list.
---
libavcodec/decode.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/decode.c b/libavcodec/decode.c
index 6c31166ec2..204bd50fa3 100644
