Hi, On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:41:26AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Derek Buitenhuis > > > <derek.buitenh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/5/2016 2:19 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > >> because the code builds the header a few lines above, i assume > > > >> the header we just build is correct > > > > > > > > Perhaps you could elaborate what CID1351343 is then, in the commit > > > > messages. > > > > > > > > > > A Coverity ID, a false positive which we decide to "fix" with an > > > assertion instead of marking it as such in the tool? > > > > > > So, I don't mind the patch, that's fine. But the commit message is > > misleading. It suggests that there's a bug and that this patch fixes the > > bug. That's incorrect. There is no bug, and this patch does not fix > > anything. It asserts something, and as asserts go, they don't fix > anything, > > they just assert (=confirm) expected behaviour. > > > > So, can we change the commit message to not include the word "fix" or any > > other misleading derivative thereof? > > absolutely, agree > do you want to suggest some wording ? I like Hendrik's earlier wording, something along the lines of "Makes false-positive CID1351343 disappear", or "Related to false-positive CID1351343". Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
