[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] web/contact: replace MPlayer guidelines link

James Darnley james.darnley at gmail.com
Fri Sep 12 00:06:20 CEST 2014

On 2014-09-11 23:10, James Darnley wrote:
> I support the change and I am willing to look at adding and adapting
> some relevant points from the mplayer text.

Point 0, "diffs please", is covered by our request for git format-patch
in the patch submission checklist[1] point 2 and the git how-to page[2]

Point 1, "svn head", is covered by point 5 on the patch submission

Point 2, "unified diffs", is covered by out request for patches.  Are we
doing to allow git diff dumps?

Point 3, "diff from tree root", I believe is covered by the request for
patches again.  Plus, I don't think git can successfully work if you
aren't in the root.

Point 4, "test", is covered by point 1 on the checklist[1], make fate.

Point 5, "read your patch", is covered by the developer doc[3] section
1.5 in which we mention patcheck.  The checklist[1] point 13 also
mentions tabs and trailing white space.

Point 6, "comment you code", is missing.  I don't think we state that
complex code and code with side effects should be commented.

Point 7, "document changes to behaviour", is covered by the development
policy section[4] point 14.  Perhaps point 20 on the checklist[1] too.

Point 8, "split patches", is covered by the dev policy[4] point 5.

Point 9, "how to send patches", should be mostly covered by the request
to use git send-email.  It also also asked that only one attachment is
added in [4].  Since we tolerate attached patches we could adapt this
into a section somewhere.

Point 10, "please wait", is covered by [4] but could also be added to
the patch review process section [5]

Point 11, "don't expect write access", is not mentioned anywhere as far
as I can tell.

Point 12 is just wrong.  We use underscores not hyphens in command line
options.  This fact does need to be mentioned somewhere though.

Point 13 is also inaccurate because we don't have an AUTHORS file.
Should this refer to the file's copyright header?

Point 14, "no printf", is covered by miscellaneous conventions[6] and
our code itself.  Reviews should catch people overriding this.

Point 15, "resend whole patches", this is missing.  Could be added in a
couple of places.

Overall, not a lot to do just some.  Points 6, maybe 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 15 need some text adding to our own docs.  I'll try submit some
patches for consideration either soon tonight or within ~24 hours.

[1] http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#patch-submission-checklist
[2] http://ffmpeg.org/git-howto.html#Sending-patches-for-review
[3] http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Submitting-patches-1
[4] http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Development-Policy
[5] http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Patch-review-process
[6] http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Miscellaneous-conventions

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20140912/c523bce7/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list