[FFmpeg-devel] policy on "necro-bumping" patches

[Ganesh Ajjanagadde]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ganesh,
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> What is ffmpeg's policy on "necro-bumping" old patches? Or more
>> precisely, what is the policy of requesting a patch to be merged where
>> all objections raised have been addressed via discussion/updated
>> patches, and which have not been merged in over 2 weeks due to unknown
>> reasons?
>>
>> In particular, there are 2 patchsets I would like to get merged:
>> 1. This I consider an important patch, simply because it solves a trac
>> ticket labelled as "important": https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964,
>> which also contains links to the patches. A lot of discussion went on
>> around it on the mailing lists, and it is supported strongly by
>> Nicolas and me. Michael seemed initially hesitant but later became
>> convinced of (at least one of the set's) utility, and one of the
>> patches was applied. The only objection I recall was from Hendrik,
>> which was addressed by Nicolas in a follow-up.
>>
>> 2. This I consider much more trivial, but in this case there are no
>> remaining objections. However, I still consider it important enough
>> for a request to re-examine, as I am doing here. The patchset is more
>> recent, https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-August/177794.html
>> and https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-September/178700.html.
>
>
> Trivial patches can be merged after 24-48 hours if there's no objections
> outstanding. For more elaborate patches, poke anyone for review if you feel
> it would be helpful.
>
> In both cases, having push access yourself will hurry this along (i.e. you
> really should get push access), but in this case I will push later today.
> If you don't want push access, poke one of us on IRC to do the push for
> you, or bump the original email with a "poke" or "ping".

Thanks. Patches for 2) needs work, and I will be posting it soon.
Patch for 1) should be ok (it was reviewed by Nicolas, and Michael
seems ok with it like I mentioned).

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