PR #20538 opened by James Almer (jamrial)
URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20538
Patch URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20538.patch
Don't keep around information from a previous traf atom.
Fixes issue #20492.
>From 9c18a8d1802726c7d59c5d067890b7f2f8c728f4 Mon Sep
> * announce code.ffmpeg.org publically so people can start submitting
> and reviewing on it as an alternative to the ML
May want to add it to this page somehow, since it's in use now, so
people know there's two?
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/
And that's the "go to" bug submission page...
Cheers!
__
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 02:12:20PM +0300, Martin Storsjö via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
Forgejo. And as sa
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
F. keep Forgejo as primary forge for patch/git workflow
M. switch back to the ML for patch/git workflow
all GA members can vote, by publically replying here with a
"F." / "Forgejo" vs "M." / "ML"
End time is in 7 days unless teh community wants to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
Hi all
2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i have not forgotten it)
heres the "after testing" discussion and vote
do we want to keep Fo
PR #20536 opened by Timo Rothenpieler (BtbN)
URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20536
Patch URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20536.patch
This way `./configure --cc=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-clang` and the like will do
something sensible, same for variants of gcc.
>From 9
On Tue, 16 Sept 2025, 16:17 Lynne via ffmpeg-devel,
wrote:
> PR #20533 opened by Lynne
> URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20533
> Patch URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20533.patch
IMO unrelated and independent changes should be different PRs.
Kieran
___
Hi Alexander
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 03:59:38PM +0200, Alexander Strasser via ffmpeg-devel
wrote:
> On 2025-09-16 10:49 +0200, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > * If we keep forgejo we will likely transition our issue tracker tickets
> > into forgejo too, discuss
Hi Martin
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 02:12:20PM +0300, Martin Storsjö via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > 2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
> > Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i h
PR #20535 opened by James Almer (jamrial)
URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20535
Patch URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20535.patch
Regression since 5acbdd2264d3b90dc11369f9e031e762f260882e, which removed
setting both values from PerThreadContext.
Given the pthread
PR #20533 opened by Lynne
URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20533
Patch URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20533.patch
>From f46d078521e6ce8fe2ce2648ae7d29367eb9c928 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lynne
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 17:39:16 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] lavf/
When mp4/mov media packaged without faststart/empty_moov is ingested
through pipe, the process stalls indefinitely or until buffers deplete
memory. This aborts the ingest immediately unless we read from seekable
input or the mdat is very small.
Signed-off-by: Tijn Porcelijn
---
libavformat/mov.
Hi
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 02:06:07PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler via ffmpeg-devel
wrote:
> On 15/09/2025 13:09, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
[...]
> > Ideas, Comments ?
>
> I do think trac is a dead end software, and we want to eventually retire it.
btw, anyone knows why the trac p
On 2025-09-16 10:49 +0200, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>
[...]
>
> * If we keep forgejo we will likely transition our issue tracker tickets
> into forgejo too, discussing with timo yesterday night indicates that
> this likely can be done cleaner and neater than at first expect
On 16 Sep 2025, at 10:49, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> 2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
> Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i have not forgotten it)
> heres the "after testing" discussion and vote
>
> do we want to keep Forgejo
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i have not forgotten it)
heres the "after testing" discussion and vote
do we want to keep Forgejo or switch back
Staying with Forgejo, so option "F".
On 9/16/2025 10:49 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i have not forgotten it)
heres the "after testing" discussion and vote
do
F
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:50 AM Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel
wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> 2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
> Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i have not forgotten it)
> heres the "after testing" discussion and vote
>
Hi all
2 months ago we voted on testing Forgejo vs Gitlab, we picked and tested
Forgejo. And as said in that vote, (and surprisingly, i have not forgotten it)
heres the "after testing" discussion and vote
do we want to keep Forgejo or switch back to the ML workflow
(or something else)
F. keep Fo
PR #20532 opened by hajin-chung
URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20532
Patch URL: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/20532.patch
The QSV decoder uses a two-stage initialization when a stream header is first
processed.
The first stage, inside qsv_decode_header(), creates
20 matches
Mail list logo
