[FFmpeg-devel] policy on "necro-bumping" patches

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:54:19PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Ganesh,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> What is ffmpeg's policy on "necro-bumping" old patches? Or more
> > >> precisely, what is the policy of requesting a patch to be merged where
> > >> all objections raised have been addressed via discussion/updated
> > >> patches, and which have not been merged in over 2 weeks due to unknown
> > >> reasons?
> > >>
> > >> In particular, there are 2 patchsets I would like to get merged:
> > >> 1. This I consider an important patch, simply because it solves a trac
> > >> ticket labelled as "important": https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964,
> > >> which also contains links to the patches. A lot of discussion went on
> > >> around it on the mailing lists, and it is supported strongly by
> > >> Nicolas and me. Michael seemed initially hesitant but later became
> > >> convinced of (at least one of the set's) utility, and one of the
> > >> patches was applied. The only objection I recall was from Hendrik,
> > >> which was addressed by Nicolas in a follow-up.
> > >>
> > >> 2. This I consider much more trivial, but in this case there are no
> > >> remaining objections. However, I still consider it important enough
> > >> for a request to re-examine, as I am doing here. The patchset is more
> > >> recent, https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-August/177794.html
> > >> and https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-September/178700.html.
> > >
> > >
> > > Trivial patches can be merged after 24-48 hours if there's no objections
> > > outstanding. For more elaborate patches, poke anyone for review if you feel
> > > it would be helpful.
> > >
> > > In both cases, having push access yourself will hurry this along (i.e. you
> > > really should get push access), but in this case I will push later today.
> > > If you don't want push access, poke one of us on IRC to do the push for
> > > you, or bump the original email with a "poke" or "ping".
> > 
> > Thanks. Patches for 2) needs work, and I will be posting it soon.
> 
> 
> > Patch for 1) should be ok (it was reviewed by Nicolas, and Michael
> > seems ok with it like I mentioned).
> 
> there where a few patches, iam not exactly sure which are left and
> what effects they have

> What i objected to and still object to is to cause the terminal to

i withdraw my objection, ill leave it to others to decide which way is
better. Some arguments in this thread have sort of changed my oppinion
from prefering the heuristic to being undecided on what is better

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20150917/d5fa10dc/attachment.sig>