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

Ganesh Ajjanagadde gajjanag at mit.edu
Sat Sep 19 15:03:52 CEST 2015


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:54:19PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > 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).
>>
>> there where a few patches, iam not exactly sure which are left and
>> what effects they have
>
>> What i objected to and still object to is to cause the terminal to
>
> i withdraw my objection, ill leave it to others to decide which way is
> better. Some arguments in this thread have sort of changed my oppinion
> from prefering the heuristic to being undecided on what is better

Ping, any other opinions?

>
> [...]
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
> -- Xenocrates
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list