[FFmpeg-cvslog] r19321 - branches/0.5/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi
Fri Jul 3 15:39:50 CEST 2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:14:07 +0200, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:25:23PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > On date Friday 2009-07-03 11:19:27 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:14:19PM +0200, stefano wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Log:
> > > > Update ffmpeg documentation regarding metadata setting. -title,
> > > > -author, -copyright, -track, -album, and -year options have been
> > > > dropped in favor of -metadata.
> > > >
> > > > Backfix of r19285, r19287, and r19320.
> > > >
> > > > Modified:
> > > > branches/0.5/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi
> > >
> > > It seems I didn't flame hard enough the last time around. One
> > > more try:
> > >
> > > Stop "backporting" unapproved patches to the 0.5 branch THIS
> > > FUCKING INSTANT! Much less if you haven't bothered to RTFM to
> > > find out how to do it properly. Now revert this mess.
> > Done.
> > Now, would you be kind enough to explain which is the procedure to
> > follow for making backports?
> As I said, RTFM.
Stefano is trying to be helpful and improve the quality of the
As far as I can discover from trunk or the branch, we don't have any
documented procedure for backporting changes to the release branch.
Grepping the entire trees case insensitively for 'backport', 'branch'
or 'release' throws nothing relevant. This suggests there is no manual
to read on such. Where is it documented?
Also, why did you get so angry? The change could be easily reverted and
this isn't happening so regularly as for your response to be the
result of growing weary of telling people. As far as I'm aware there was
one previous instance where something was committed to the branch that
you didn't approve.
I'm not saying people should commit unapproved patches to the branch,
not at all, just that I think your response was rude, discouraging and
More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog