On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: > > Przemysław Sobala <przemyslaw.sobala <at> grupawp.pl> writes: > > > >> I know it's a bit late but could you backport fixes for > >> #4841, #4849, #5121, #5267 > > > > None of these were reported as regresions and I don't think > > any of them describe a security issue. > > Generally, backports should be held to a minimum to avoid > > issues like ticket #5090. > > The commit referenced in 5090 is clearly a new feature, and should > never have been backported in the first place.
The problem was that other FFmpeg developers asked for this to be backported and the change looked benign from a quick look ... > Backporting simple and obvious fixes is generally fine and should be > encouraged (only looked at 5121 and 5267, and those two look fine for > backports) > > > - Hendrik > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue. -- Xenocrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
