On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:54:19PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: >> > 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). >> >> there where a few patches, iam not exactly sure which are left and >> what effects they have > >> What i objected to and still object to is to cause the terminal to > > i withdraw my objection, ill leave it to others to decide which way is > better. Some arguments in this thread have sort of changed my oppinion > from prefering the heuristic to being undecided on what is better
Ping, any other opinions? > > [...] > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue. > -- Xenocrates > > _______________________________________________ > 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
