On 2/6/2016 10:42 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > 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
The couple times i dealt with a trac ticket that wasn't a bug i used "addressed" instead of "fixed". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
