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

[Ronald S. Bultje]

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".

Ronald