On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Marton Balint wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Tobias Rapp wrote:
On 08.03.2018 00:14, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aurelien Jacobs
wrote:
On
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Tobias Rapp wrote:
On 08.03.2018 00:14, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:45:03PM +0100, Marton
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Tobias Rapp wrote:
> On 08.03.2018 00:14, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:45:03PM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
On
On 08.03.2018 00:14, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:45:03PM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:02:48AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:14:00AM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:45:03PM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Mar 06,
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:45:03PM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:02:48AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
>> > > Accepting 'u' suffix for a
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:45:03PM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:02:48AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> > > Accepting 'u' suffix for a time specification is neither intuitive nor
> > > consistent (now that we don't
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:02:48AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
Accepting 'u' suffix for a time specification is neither intuitive nor
consistent (now that we don't accept m).
The 'm' SI prefix is still accepted in various time options, and the 'u'
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:02:48AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> Accepting 'u' suffix for a time specification is neither intuitive nor
> consistent (now that we don't accept m).
The 'm' SI prefix is still accepted in various time options, and the 'u'
prefix is still accepted in those options
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Marton Balint wrote:
Accepting 'u' suffix for a time specification is neither intuitive nor
consistent (now that we don't accept m). Also there was a bug in the code
accepting an extra 's' even after 'ms'.
Signed-off-by: Marton Balint
---
Accepting 'u' suffix for a time specification is neither intuitive nor
consistent (now that we don't accept m). Also there was a bug in the code
accepting an extra 's' even after 'ms'.
Signed-off-by: Marton Balint
---
libavutil/parseutils.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 3
11 matches
Mail list logo