On 2017-04-01 13:12 +0200, wm4 wrote: > On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 10:01:15 +0200 > Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: [...] > > Therefore, it was not acceptable as is and should not have been pushed. > > > > Pushing while leaving only half a day to answer this was UNACCEPTABLE. > > Do not ever do it again please. > > Why get upset over a simple function being added? > > Lots of unreviewed patches or patches that were half-approved or not > really approved get pushed. That's how this project work. If you don't > like it, propose a rule change.
I do not think a rule change is needed for this case at hand. While it is probably true that there were patches that didn't have enough review before they were pushed, it is not at all common, that patches which are the subject of an active discussion, as it was in this case, just get pushed. Additionally this patch adds public API which should be sufficiently discussed because reverting soon becomes difficult and involved. [...] Alexander _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
