On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ganesh, > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> What is ffmpeg's policy on "necro-bumping" old patches? Or more >> precisely, what is the policy of requesting a patch to be merged where >> all objections raised have been addressed via discussion/updated >> patches, and which have not been merged in over 2 weeks due to unknown >> reasons? >> >> In particular, there are 2 patchsets I would like to get merged: >> 1. This I consider an important patch, simply because it solves a trac >> ticket labelled as "important": https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964, >> which also contains links to the patches. A lot of discussion went on >> around it on the mailing lists, and it is supported strongly by >> Nicolas and me. Michael seemed initially hesitant but later became >> convinced of (at least one of the set's) utility, and one of the >> patches was applied. The only objection I recall was from Hendrik, >> which was addressed by Nicolas in a follow-up. >> >> 2. This I consider much more trivial, but in this case there are no >> remaining objections. However, I still consider it important enough >> for a request to re-examine, as I am doing here. The patchset is more >> recent, https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-August/177794.html >> and https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-September/178700.html. > > > Trivial patches can be merged after 24-48 hours if there's no objections > outstanding. For more elaborate patches, poke anyone for review if you feel > it would be helpful. > > In both cases, having push access yourself will hurry this along (i.e. you > really should get push access), but in this case I will push later today. > If you don't want push access, poke one of us on IRC to do the push for > you, or bump the original email with a "poke" or "ping".
Thanks. Patches for 2) needs work, and I will be posting it soon. Patch for 1) should be ok (it was reviewed by Nicolas, and Michael seems ok with it like I mentioned). > > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
