On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:31 PM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:05:28 -0400 > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > >> More generally, how is this problem "easy to verify"? It may be >> included indirectly, etc. Since you seem to think it is easy, go ahead > > Indirect inclusion is IMHO not fine for such compat headers which > define standard functions on systems where they're missing. And direct > inclusion is easy to verify. > > Nobody expects that you think of everything, but here you ignored a > direct request from a reviewer. > >> >> If FFmpeg waited until verification on every single config was done, >> we would be nowhere. You may think it is not cool, I could say the >> same about many things you have posted on this mailing list as well. > > Strange that you're so awfully pedantic about C standard conformance > (so that we need dozens of patches to fix what doesn't need to be > fixed), but when it gets annoying for you, suddenly pushing and waiting > until it breaks is fine. How does this even make sense?
I assume an LGTM implied that the reviewer (in this case Michael) checked this issue. Seems like a misunderstanding. I did not push because it got "annoying" for me. I pushed because I got an ack from Michael. You may think whatever you want about it, e.g if you don't believe me, I am not going to try to convince you. > >> If Michael thought this was not cool, I will immediately take action. > > Hendrik's voice counts as much as Michael's. I referred to Michael as he was the reviewer for the patches. > _______________________________________________ > 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
