On Sun, Jan 31, 2016, at 07:33 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
> It would be great if somebody writes a (short) news entry.
If someone provides the text I can add it to the site.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mail
Hendrik Leppkes gmail.com> writes:
> The decoder has been pushed now.
It would be great if somebody writes a (short) news entry.
Thank you!
Carl Eugen
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-de
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:02 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/30/2016 6:45 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:41 PM, James Almer wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2016 6:15 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Hendrik Leppkes
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 20
On 1/30/2016 6:45 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:41 PM, James Almer wrote:
>> On 1/30/2016 6:15 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Hendrik Leppkes
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> On 25.01.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:41 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/30/2016 6:15 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>>> wrote:
On 25.01.2016 23:47, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> The decoder in i
On 1/30/2016 6:15 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>> wrote:
>>> On 25.01.2016 23:47, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
The decoder in itself looks fine to me, short of the regression michael
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> wrote:
>> On 25.01.2016 23:47, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> The decoder in itself looks fine to me, short of the regression michael
>>> found.
>>> If you could look at that, that would be
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> On 25.01.2016 23:47, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> The decoder in itself looks fine to me, short of the regression michael
>> found.
>> If you could look at that, that would be great.
>>
>> I can squash and re-shuffle the commits appropriate
On 25.01.2016 23:47, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> The decoder in itself looks fine to me, short of the regression michael found.
> If you could look at that, that would be great.
>
> I can squash and re-shuffle the commits appropriately for pushing and
> make sure all intermediate steps still build, s
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
>>> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller
>>> commits to
>>> make reviewing easier; y
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
>> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller commits
>> to
>> make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squash it as needed.
>>
>> Changes since the firs
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:57 AM, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 7:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
>>> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller
>>> commits to
>>> make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squ
On 1/22/2016 7:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
>> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller commits
>> to
>> make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squash it as needed.
>>
>> Changes since the first version:
>>
On 1/22/2016 7:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 06:43:15PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 1/22/2016 6:40 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 06:43:15PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 6:40 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
> >> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller
> >> commits to
> >> make reviewing easier; you may p
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller commits
> to
> make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squash it as needed.
>
> Changes since the first version:
>
> * Removed checkasm test for dcadsp
> * Removed FATE
On 1/22/2016 6:40 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
>> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller commits
>> to
>> make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squash it as needed.
>>
>> Changes since the first version:
>>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:44:06PM +0300, foo86 wrote:
> Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller commits
> to
> make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squash it as needed.
>
> Changes since the first version:
>
> * Removed checkasm test for dcadsp
> * Removed FATE te
Updated version of the patch. I choose to split it into even smaller commits to
make reviewing easier; you may prefer to squash it as needed.
Changes since the first version:
* Removed checkasm test for dcadsp
* Removed FATE test for dca-xll (didn't check if this works)
* Core decoder now uses bu
19 matches
Mail list logo
