On 4/11/20, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote: > Quoting Paul B Mahol (2020-04-11 11:29:40) >> On 4/11/20, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote: >> > 100%? Meaning you think no patches should go to the mailing list? >> > >> > Or only some specific patches are exempt? Based on what criterion? And >> > who applies it? >> > And most importantly, why? >> >> Only trivial patches, like cosmetics of few lines, and this one above > > In my experience the line between "trivial cosmetics" and "nontrivial > changes" is very fuzzy and observer-dependent. Better to be safe and > just send everything. It's not like there is a massive flood of trivial > patches all the time. > >> and functional patches that clean ups code. > > Not sure what you mean here. "clean up" can mean refactoring patches, > which can be highly fragile and should most certainly be reviewed when > possible. > >> >> Why? Because it adds too much burden for real review work on this mailing >> list. > > It's certainly worth considering how to structure patch submission > better, so that people do not need to wade through piles of emails that > don't concern them. E.g. splitting the mailing lists into per-library, > or implementing some sort of a tagging system or moving to some kind of > a merge-request system come to mind. But I do not think directly pushing > patches without any possibility of review is a good solution to this. >
Disagree, there are people that just comment for just showing how they lack insight in actual code. Or they want to force someone into specific nits. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".