Patch Writing Guidelines? (was Re: [Ffmpeg-devel] [RFC] ffmpeg-windows mailinglist?)
Wed Aug 2 15:45:35 CEST 2006
On Aug 2, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:09:21PM -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>> It's a great pity IMO that most people seem to be content with
>>> coming up with a hack that makes their machines work but seem
>>> unwilling to work on a more general solution ...
>> The more general solution was never previously explained in a way
>> that was clear to me. As it is now, I understand the problem with the
>> patch and should be able to put time into cleaning it up properly.
> I hope we shall have all of this behind us soon then.
> Can we come to some sort of consensus here? I propose that patch
> senders do not take rejections personally or as dismissals of their
> and on the other hand FFmpeg reviewers make an attempt to explain the
> reasoning behind patch rejections in a clearer fashion that points in
> the way of acceptable solutions.
Some general patch-writing guidelines might go a long way towards
helping this. In particular, the configure vs. inline-platform-
identifier is fairly nonobvious to those of us that are coming in
with the express goal of making our platform work, that kind of patch
(in general) seems to be what most projects expect (that said, your
solution is infinitely nicer now that I understand it).
I can't speak to other things that are nonobvious, but it's probably
worth posting such things someplace on the site, perhaps with a link
from the "Downloads and SVN" page?
(maybe such guidelines exist but I never saw them?)
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at mplayerhq.hu
More information about the ffmpeg-devel