On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:57:32PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:13:06AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 00:52:26 (CEST), Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:30:51PM -0700, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: > > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: > > >> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:10:24PM -0700, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> --- a/libavutil/avutil.h > > >> >> +++ b/libavutil/avutil.h > > >> >> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ > > >> >> > > >> >> #define LIBAVUTIL_VERSION_MAJOR 51 > > >> >> -#define LIBAVUTIL_VERSION_MINOR 10 > > >> >> +#define LIBAVUTIL_VERSION_MINOR 11 > > >> >> #define LIBAVUTIL_VERSION_MICRO 2 > > >> > > > >> > Reset micro if you bump minor. > > >> > > >> Done and done and pushed. > > > > > > Please mark patches as committed in patchwork if you change them before > > > pushing, patchwork does not pick up changed patches on its own. > > > > This should be fixed in patchwork then. I've talked to the author at > > LPC, and it seems they are considering heuristics to mark patches as > > 'related' automatically. I imagine if implemented right, this would save > > us a lot of work! > > Until then we will have to keep doing it ourselves and come on, it's not > *that* much work ...
I'm looking at patchwork now and quite clearly few people if anybody try to keep it updated. This is a shame since it is of little use if cluttered with tons of superseded and applied patches. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
