[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 01/11] ffmpeg: use log10 instead of log()/log(10)

Ganesh Ajjanagadde gajjanag at mit.edu
Fri Oct 30 02:00:03 CET 2015

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:31 PM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:05:28 -0400
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
>> More generally, how is this problem "easy to verify"? It may be
>> included indirectly, etc. Since you seem to think it is easy, go ahead
> Indirect inclusion is IMHO not fine for such compat headers which
> define standard functions on systems where they're missing. And direct
> inclusion is easy to verify.
> Nobody expects that you think of everything, but here you ignored a
> direct request from a reviewer.
>> If FFmpeg waited until verification on every single config was done,
>> we would be nowhere. You may think it is not cool, I could say the
>> same about many things you have posted on this mailing list as well.
> Strange that you're so awfully pedantic about C standard conformance
> (so that we need dozens of patches to fix what doesn't need to be
> fixed), but when it gets annoying for you, suddenly pushing and waiting
> until it breaks is fine. How does this even make sense?

I assume an LGTM implied that the reviewer (in this case Michael)
checked this issue. Seems like a misunderstanding.

I did not push because it got "annoying" for me. I pushed because I
got an ack from Michael. You may think whatever you want about it, e.g
if you don't believe me, I am not going to try to convince you.

>> If Michael thought this was not cool, I will immediately take action.
> Hendrik's voice counts as much as Michael's.

I referred to Michael as he was the reviewer for the patches.

> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list