On 25.01.2016 23:47, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > The decoder in itself looks fine to me, short of the regression michael found. > If you could look at that, that would be great. > > I can squash and re-shuffle the commits appropriately for pushing and > make sure all intermediate steps still build, so don't worry about > that as much. > I would love to get this in soon, we can do further improvements and > more FATE coverage after.
I agree that it's time to apply these patches. Resending this huge patch set for tiny improvements is just not practical. > There doesn't seem to be much agreement yet of the order of pushing. > I would argue that since we're replacing the decoder entirely anyway, > a tiny period in between where we don't actually have a dca decoder > wouldn't break any bisect flow, since it would probably end there > anyway. > So considering that, it feels cleaner to me to push the removal first, > and then the additions for the new decoder for "prettier" history. That seems fine to me, but I don't have a strong opinion about this. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
