On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:37:16 +0200, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:31:30AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:51:42PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > > >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <[email protected]> > > >> --- > > >> libavformat/4xm.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/aiffenc.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/cafdec.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/ffmdec.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/ffmenc.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/flvdec.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/flvenc.c | 2 ++ > > >> libavformat/gxfenc.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/matroskaenc.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/mov.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/movenc.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/nuv.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/rtmppkt.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/rtmpproto.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/soxdec.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/soxenc.c | 1 + > > >> libavformat/thp.c | 1 + > > >> libavutil/avutil.h | 1 - > > >> 18 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > The whole 5-patch set is OK if you tested that all targets like > > > examples etc. still build, which you told me is the case. > > > So go ahead and push when you feel like it. > > > > Do we want this in before the release? > > Good question. Since this could be called a change in behavior, it > should not be in a point release. So it's either 0.7 or never on > the 0.7 branch IMO. > > I would not mind putting it in, but I'm undecided - Reinhard? >
I don't think it should be in 0.7. I guess many apps depend on avutil.h including everything, so pushing this into 0.7 means hordes of users complaining how their program doesn't build with 0.7. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
