On 10/14/2017 2:22 PM, Daniel Kučera wrote: > 2017-10-14 19:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kučera <daniel.kuc...@gmail.com>: >> 2017-10-14 17:46 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc>: >>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:10:37AM +0200, Daniel Kučera wrote: >>>> breaks fate-indeo3-2 >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> You need to apply the whole set. It passed all fate tests on my machine. >>> >>> I applied the whole set and bisected to find which patch caused the >>> failure >>> >>> also the i-th patch of a set must pass fate with it and the 0th to ith >>> patches applied, otherwise there would be checkouts that fail some tests >>> >> >> So should I reorder them and post again? >> >> > > What if they don't pass fate in any order? should I post them as one patch?
If one patch introduces a problem that gets fixed by a subsequent patch then yes, both should be squashed into one to make sure the problem is never introduced. The idea is that no patch/commit on its own should generate a fate failure of any kind, as it would make bisecting unrelated future issues harder. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
