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

[Ganesh Ajjanagadde]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> 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
>
> Ping, any other opinions?

It has been a week with no standing objections (Michael withdrew his).
Further, there have not been any additional comments. Hence, a ping to
apply https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-July/176481.html.
More discussion and context: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2964.

>
>>
>> [...]
>> --
>> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>>
>> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
>> -- Xenocrates
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
>> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
>> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>>