On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:05:28 -0400 Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote:
> More generally, how is this problem "easy to verify"? It may be > included indirectly, etc. Since you seem to think it is easy, go ahead Indirect inclusion is IMHO not fine for such compat headers which define standard functions on systems where they're missing. And direct inclusion is easy to verify. Nobody expects that you think of everything, but here you ignored a direct request from a reviewer. > > If FFmpeg waited until verification on every single config was done, > we would be nowhere. You may think it is not cool, I could say the > same about many things you have posted on this mailing list as well. Strange that you're so awfully pedantic about C standard conformance (so that we need dozens of patches to fix what doesn't need to be fixed), but when it gets annoying for you, suddenly pushing and waiting until it breaks is fine. How does this even make sense? > If Michael thought this was not cool, I will immediately take action. Hendrik's voice counts as much as Michael's. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
