On 2/3/2016 4:39 AM, wm4 wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 23:41:59 -0300 > James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/2/2016 11:17 PM, Timothy Gu wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 07:04:06PM -0800, Timothy Gu wrote: >>>> --- >>>> libavdevice/sdl.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> Set pushed. >>> >>> Timothy >> >> You sent this set last night. There was no reason to push it in a hurry >> without waiting for a review. > > While I'm all for reviews, this set is rather inoffensive, and there > are much messier and more controversial patches pushed without even > sending them to the ML. Do we even have a consistent policy here?
Give it at least a couple days before pushing unreviewed patches for code you don't maintain? Inoffensive were the two cosmetic ones he pushed before, which are fine, but making encoders use a different API could use a second pair of eyes. It's not like the older deprecated API is being removed soon and these patches needed to go in asap. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
