On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:13:05PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote: > 2015-10-09 11:49 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc>: > >> Does that actually work even without the patch? I have the same issue > > > > no, it doesnt work before either, its unrelated > > Well I thought it was relevant to the patch and it was causing that > regression. So as far as I know, replacing the previous pattern by the > new one doesn't seem to cause issues to something else, so it's > actually good.
applied > > >, i just stumbled accross it while testing ... > > sorry if i wasnt clear about that > > Try the attached patch for that separate issue. It's not the > prettiest, and the next new test might break it, but if that's the > first time ever this issue appeared, it's probably not worth bothering > more with it. sems working ill wait a day or 2 (in case someone has a idea for how to do this in some nicer way) and then apply unless i forget thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
