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

[Clément Bœsch]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27:30PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde 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.

I don't like FFABSDIFF() patch because it creates a macro very much type
specific, while all other FF macro around are type agnostic.

-- 
Clément B.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20150915/88d86dfa/attachment.sig>