Hi Rune, On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:26 PM, <u-9...@aetey.se> wrote:
> Ronald, > > On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 02:38:31PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM, <u-9...@aetey.se> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:41:40PM +0100, u-9...@aetey.se wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:19:45PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > you may want to add yourself to MAINTAINERs (after talking with > > > > > roberto, who i belive has less interrest in cinepak than you do > > > > > nowadays) > > > > > > > > Sounds ok for me. Roberto, what do you think (if you read this)? > > > > > > The only address to him which I found (in an old commit) bounced, > > > there was no reply here on the list either. > > > > > > Both can be a coincidence, but otherwise it looks like the change > should > > > be OK. > > > > > > No. This has been discussed repeatedly. Stop trying to push this through. > > My maintainership (for the code which I have contributed to, you may be > unaware about this fact) was not discussed otherwise than cited here. > > Please check what you are commenting, > especially when you mean to sound like having a definite power The rule is that a patch cannot be committed while a developer has outstanding comments. There's outstanding comments, including some from me. You said "the change should be OK", and I'm simply saying "no" to that, because it's not. The patch is not OK until review comments from other developers have been addressed by the patch submitter. Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
