Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Wed, 3 May 2017, wm4 wrote: >>> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/6323 Rather tricky to fix, so I didn't. The problem is that the filter graph remains unconfigured, so it can't know about unconnected outputs. It remains unconfigured because the first input file is connected to two filters

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 1 May 2017 15:29:22 -0300 James Almer wrote: > On 5/1/2017 3:13 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, wm4 wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:14:15 +0200 (CEST) > >> Marton Balint wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Michael

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 1 May 2017 15:29:22 -0300 James Almer wrote: > On 5/1/2017 3:13 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, wm4 wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:14:15 +0200 (CEST) > >> Marton Balint wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Michael

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On 5/1/2017 3:13 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, wm4 wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:14:15 +0200 (CEST) >> Marton Balint wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: >>> >>

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, wm4 wrote: On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Marton Balint wrote: On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: >> We have recently been able to go through six hundred or so

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:33:29AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 4/24/2017 3:27 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > >> On 4/23/2017 11:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> Should changes ported from libav (what we

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On 4/24/2017 3:27 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: >> On 4/23/2017 11:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed >>> before being pushed? >> >> The lot of

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

i apologize in advance for replying to this email and not carls, but be assured i am replying to both carl and wm4 here. On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:13:32 +0200, wm4 wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:00:41 +0200 > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > 2017-04-24 15:38

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Marton Balint wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > > >> We have recently been able to go through six hundred or so commits in a > >> month or two

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:19:00 -0300 James Almer wrote: > On 4/24/2017 4:08 PM, wm4 wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:27:45 +0200 > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > >>> On 4/23/2017

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On 4/24/2017 4:08 PM, wm4 wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:27:45 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: >>> On 4/23/2017 11:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: Hi all Should changes ported from

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: We have recently been able to go through six hundred or so commits in a month or two this way after being stuck for the longest time by a few of those big API changes. If we start

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:27:45 +0200 Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > > On 4/23/2017 11:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > > > Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23:16AM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 4/23/2017 11:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > Hi all > > > > Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed > > before being pushed? > > The lot of merges are simple things like "Fix this bug that was

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:00:41 +0200 Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2017-04-24 15:38 GMT+02:00 wm4 : > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:23:20 +0200 > > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > >> 2017-04-24 13:39 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:50:38 -0700 Aaron Levinson wrote: > properly review some of the ported changes on ffmpeg-devel. For > example, I submitted a patch to fix a bug with QuickSync interlaced > video to ffmpeg-devel on 4/13/2017. The change mostly reverted some of >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On 4/24/2017 12:50 AM, Aaron Levinson wrote: > For example, I submitted a patch to fix a bug with QuickSync interlaced > video to ffmpeg-devel on 4/13/2017. The change mostly reverted some of > the QSV code in ffmpeg back to an earlier state. Interlaced video QSV > encoding used to work in

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On 4/23/2017 11:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi all > > Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed > before being pushed? The lot of merges are simple things like "Fix this bug that was already fixed in ffmpeg months ago", "K", etc. Lately we are even no-oping a

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

2017-04-24 15:38 GMT+02:00 wm4 : > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:23:20 +0200 > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> 2017-04-24 13:39 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje : >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wm4 wrote:

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:23:20 +0200 Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2017-04-24 13:39 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje : > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wm4 wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:46:38 +0200 > >> Carl Eugen

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

2017-04-24 13:39 GMT+02:00 Ronald S. Bultje : > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wm4 wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:46:38 +0200 >> Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> > 2017-04-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Aaron Levinson

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

Hi, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wm4 wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:46:38 +0200 > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > 2017-04-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Aaron Levinson : > > > On 4/23/2017 7:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> > > >>

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:46:38 +0200 Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2017-04-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Aaron Levinson : > > On 4/23/2017 7:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > >> Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed > >> before being

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

2017-04-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Aaron Levinson : > On 4/23/2017 7:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> >> Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed >> before being pushed? > > I've asked about this on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel). The overall consensus there, > at

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

On 4/23/2017 7:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: Hi all Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed before being pushed? I've asked about this on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel). The overall consensus there, at least at the time I asked it, is there is an expectation that such

[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Reviewing merges

Hi all Should changes ported from libav (what we call merges) be reviewed before being pushed? -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. -- Aristotle signature.asc Description: