Am 23.12.2015 19:47 schrieb "Ganesh Ajjanagadde" <gajja...@mit.edu>: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 23.12.2015 18:30 schrieb "Ganesh Ajjanagadde" <gajjanaga...@gmail.com >: > >> > >> Commits 062e3e23824ba3d25594ea966d7834bcf34db49b and > >> dd68cde28a44bbf5307d29ee6cb8ebd14985dea5 added support for erf and > >> copysign on broken libms, and so dynaudnorm is now available on all > >> platforms. > >> > >> This is user facing; hence the Changelog entry. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> Changelog | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Changelog b/Changelog > >> index 2b46ddb..bb29afb 100644 > >> --- a/Changelog > >> +++ b/Changelog > >> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ version <next>: > >> - DXVA2-accelerated VP9 decoding > >> - SOFAlizer: virtual binaural acoustics filter > >> - VAAPI VP9 hwaccel > >> +- dynaudnorm filter availability on all platforms > >> > >> > >> version 2.8: > >> -- > >> 2.6.4 > >> > > > > dynaudnorm hasnt been in any previous release, has it? IIRC its still very > > new itself, so no need for a change log entry IMHO. > > As Paul points out, it was added in 2.8. It was for this precise > reason that I wondered about the Changelog. So is the summary that the > patch is ok (or neutral)? In other words, does anyone oppose it? >
Personally I wouldn't care that much to mention it in the change log, but its not like I would oppose it, so if Paul as the author of the filter feels its fine, then LGTM as well. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
