On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:26:32PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:19:55AM -0700, Timothy Gu wrote: >> > >> > http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2014-August/062391.html: >> > the first more important point was not considered in the only reply to >> > the post >> >> This patch was not pushed yet and subsequent patches take the issue into >> account. > > IOW, I consider a patch a reply, I don't see a need to additionally reply > by email after a reply by patch has been made already.
There are no updated patch, nor any patch-dropped notice on the mailing list. > There was also > some IRC discussion on how to improve that specific FATE test and, IIRC, > Clément was involved. I am aware of that. > >> > http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2013-November/053158.html: >> > the VP9 decoder was pushed without addressing the original author's >> > concern. >> >> That was not a review and this VP9 story was preceded by the HEVC story. > Anton, nor any other Libav devs complained about Michael taking the HEVC patch to FFmpeg-devel, at least not on mailing list. > The remark you mention there was not a review, but rather a complaint that > the submitted patch was not easy enough to diff against the FFmpeg version. > Cleanup by other contributors from libav was squashed in order to have a > clean version in the history and for review on the ml. I and others > gladly rescinded any specific authorship attribution for that. Sure, but you guys still ignored that complaint. I understand the rationale behind squashing, but not replying is not nice IMO. Another more recent one: http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2014-August/062810.html Timothy _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
