On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@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 <rsbul...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > Hi Ganesh, >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@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. > >> >> [...] >> -- >> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB >> >> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue. >> -- Xenocrates >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel