On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 09:20:20PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:41:29AM -0800, Lou Logan wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016, at 09:49 AM, Bodecs Bela wrote: > > > > > > under review: someone marked it because he/she investigate this patch. > > > So the patch submitter and other potential reviewers may feel/be_sure > > > that this patch is already handled by someone else. > > > I suggest to use it. This is psychologic aspect that the patch submitter > > > may feel more patienty toward review process opposite to mere "new" > > > state. > > > > In my opinion that seems like unnecessary extra work. All patches in > > theory are to be "under review". Reviewing takes enough time, > > initiative, and motivation as is, and adding another, potentially > > superfluous step just over complicates it. > > > > Perhaps "Under Review" can just be removed, disabled, hidden, or > > documented as "this option is ignored". Same with "Deferred" and > > "Awaiting Upstream". > > Removed "Under Review" and "Awaiting Upstream" > Theres a patch with "Deferred" state, this would need to be changed > first
patch applied [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. -- Plato
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
