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

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> It has been a week with no standing objections (Michael withdrew his).
> Further, there have not been any additional comments. Hence, a ping to
> apply https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-July/176481.html.
> More discussion and context: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964.
>

Please ping the actual thread of the patch, and not some seemingly
unrelated thread, so people are actually aware of the topic at hand.