On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 16:17:42 +0100 > Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/3/2017 2:18 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > breaks fate >> >> I'll look into it tonight; busy today. >> >> . >> . >> . >> >> Aside: >> >> I'll just add, though, that these two word 'breaks fate' emails >> are kind of obnoxious when the test in question was added days >> after I sent the set, so I couldn't have possibly tested against >> it, and the commit that added the test and this email has /zero/ >> info about what the test actually tests (a bug id is not a commit >> message). > > This. These opaque fate tests are so much work to get around. It went > far enough that I added bullshit to ffmpeg.c to get around some of the > questionable tests. > > Also, TRAC issue numbers have 0 information contents. Even if you go > through the obnoxious process of looking it up on TRAC and trying to > extract iunformation from a confusing discussion with a confused user > (99% of TRAC issues), TRAC could easily go away. It already happened > once, and some of the bug numbers in old commits obviously don't match > with what's on current TRAC. >
I agree, this test could've easily been named something useful, like fate-mp4-copy-eac3 or whatever namespaces we use for mp4 tests, which would convey the same information without having to lookup the ticket on trac. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
