On 7/3/2017 12:45 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > 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.
The test can be renamed. What can't be changed in the sample name if it's already used in a release. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
