[MPlayer-cvslog] r29140 - trunk/version.sh

Uoti Urpala uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi
Sat Apr 4 23:01:34 CEST 2009

On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 20:42 +0000, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala <at> pp1.inet.fi> writes:
> > > > Why did you commit this partial check fix if you were going to post a
> > > > patch which removes it a few minutes later?
> > 
> > > What makes it "partial"?
> > 
> > It doesn't compare the whole file.
> And in which situation does this make a difference? You mean in case the file
> system is corrupt, but still allows compilation of the complete MPlayer tree?

Not sure where you get the "file system corruption" from. Anyway this
was not the main point.

> > > I'm not sure I prefer the new patch, Carl Eugen
> > 
> > Then you should have waited for that to be decided first. The
> Your vote might be welcome.

How it's decided doesn't really matter.

> > larger-than-necessary rebuilds were not such a serious issue that you'd
> > need to first commit "something, anything" and only then start thinking
> > how it really should be done.

> We clearly disagree here.

If you're claiming that it was an urgent issue then that's quite

> Note that I did neither commit "something" nor "anything", but an approved patch
> that fixed the problem (that can be fixed differently as well).

My main point was not about the quality of what you committed. Rather
the point was that if you're even _yourself_ uncertain about how it
should be done (as demonstrated to be the case by you posting a
different patch a few minutes later) then you should resolve that first.

Your quoting is snipping a bit too much BTW, I restored what you were
actually replying to.

More information about the MPlayer-cvslog mailing list