[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] ffv1enc: Make ffv1.3 non experimental

[Alexander Strasser]

Hi Paul!

On 2013-08-18 10:22 +0000, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 8/18/13, Alexander Strasser <eclipse7 at gmx.net> wrote:
> > On 2013-08-17 14:11 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:22:19AM +0000, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> >> > On 8/17/13, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
[...]
> >> > > improving fates coverage was and is welcome
> >> >
> >> > Sorry but not me. You as mainter of ffv1 are first on line.
> >>
> >> maintainers review changes
> >> maintainers integrate/merge/pull/cherry pick good changes
> >> maintainers fix regressions and make sure the code is in good shape
> >> and working
> >> maintainers revert bad changes and they then flame thouse who did the
> >> bad change
> >
> >   I consider the flaming part optional :)
> >
> >> maintainers might do alot more than that but adding every good idea
> >> someone proposes is not their "duty" though of course they might
> >> do it anyway
> >
> >   Also we have docs about maintaining written here since some time:
> >
> >   https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/MaintainingFFmpeg
> >
> >   Maybe we should add reverting bad changes as an explicit
> > bullet point there. Will do so, if no one has good reasons
> > against it. It also kind of includes fixing regressions
> > so I do not think we need to state that explicitly.
> 
> Looks like everybody missed real point. Without coverage
> one can not found out if some change caused regression, and the
> only way is if someone reports it.

  Or if anybody spots it while reviewing the commit...

  Anyway, I agree with the point you make. My former reply was only
meant about the duties of maintaining code in FFmpeg and that we have
a Wiki page that describes the responsibilities.

  Besides, if I am not mistaken, Michael just committed reg tests
for 1.0 --- though I would not see it as a necessity demanded
by his maintainer role! I would rather say that he could do it
and agreed with your point that test coverage of some older
version of the codec makes sense.


  Alexander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20130818/180d7511/attachment.asc>