[MPlayer-cvslog] r27474 - in trunk: Copyright libdvdcss/css.c libdvdcss/css.h libdvdcss/csstables.h libdvdcss/device.c libdvdcss/device.h libdvdcss/dvdcss/dvdcss.h libdvdcss/ioctl.c libdvdcss/libdvdcss.c libdvdcss/libdvdcss.h

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 8/22/08, Reimar Doeffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at stud.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:51:31PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> On 8/22/08, The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 8/21/08, diego <subversion at mplayerhq.hu> wrote:
>> >  >
>> >>> Author: diego
>> >>> Date: Thu Aug 21 15:40:16 2008
>> >>> New Revision: 27474
>> >>>
>> >>> Log:
>> >>> Sync libdvdcss with upstream version r212.
>> >> ...
>> >>> --- trunk/libdvdcss/css.c	(original)
>> >>> +++ trunk/libdvdcss/css.c	Thu Aug 21 15:40:16 2008
>> >>> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
>> >>>   * Copyright (C) 1999-2003 VideoLAN
>> >>>   * $Id$
>> >>>   *
>> >>> - * Authors: Stéphane Borel <stef at via.ecp.fr>
>> >>> - *          Håkan Hjort <d95hjort at dtek.chalmers.se>
>> >>> + * Authors: Stéphane Borel <stef at via.ecp.fr>
>> >>> + *          Håkan Hjort <d95hjort at dtek.chalmers.se>
>> >>>   *
>> >>>   * based on:
>> >>>   *  - css-auth by Derek Fawcus <derek at spider.com>
>> >>> @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ int _dvdcss_disckey( dvdcss_t dvdcss )
>> >>>                                   "cracking title keys instead" );
>> >>>
>> >>>              /* Fallback, but not to DISC as the disc key might be
>> >>> faulty
>> >>> */
>> >>> +            memset( p_disc_key, 0, KEY_SIZE );
>> >>>              dvdcss->i_method = DVDCSS_METHOD_TITLE;
>> >>>              break;
>> >> 
>> >> Mixing cosmetic with functional changes.
>> >
>> > I believe there's precedent for that being considered acceptable in the
>> > case of "sync with upstream" patches.
>> 
>> Please, be so kind to find it.
>> 
>> All I was able to find were commits r20431 and r20433/4 who are clear
>> precedent for the opposite. Having bonus of touching the same area.
>
> The vidix update stuff was never split, and was far, far, far more
> problematic.

Would you be more specific? e.g. revision number.
I tried but couldn't find it.

>> The reasons for splitting cosmetics and functional changes are still valid
>> 
>> even when the changes are coming from upstream.
>
> Yes, but there they are an immense effort that can not be avoided by
> creating the patches properly in the first
> place since that is out of our control, as is the final result.

Not in this case.

I can understand if he commit code that changes indentation, variables, etc,
but here we have quite distinct changes e.g. author name spelling in the credits.