On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun > <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > I have started to rebase, update and squash it appropriately, > including the patch for Michaels issue I posted earlier. > Once its all ready for pushing, I'll post my GitHub link for a final > review if anyone wants to, and otherwise push it in the next day or > two, so we finally get this done. >
Here is the repository, rebased and partially squashed: https://github.com/Nevcairiel/FFmpeg/tree/dca All individual steps build and pass FATE, version bump and Changelog entry in the commit with the new decoder. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
