[FFmpeg-devel] policy on "necro-bumping" patches
gajjanag at mit.edu
Tue Sep 15 18:47:35 CEST 2015
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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".
>> Thanks. Patches for 2) needs work, and I will be posting it soon.
>> Patch for 1) should be ok (it was reviewed by Nicolas, and Michael
>> seems ok with it like I mentioned).
> there where a few patches, iam not exactly sure which are left and
> what effects they have
> What i objected to and still object to is to cause the terminal to
> be messed up in the most common default configuration in linux
> (that is with bash) when ffmpeg crashes (either in a naturally/naively
> written script or from the command line)
> Iam not sure th last patches still cause this or not
Don't know what you exactly mean by a naturally/naively written
script, and an example would be very helpful. I can say for certainty
that fate and its associated scripts will not suffer from this issue,
simply because of the -nostdin flag that was added in one of the
patches (which has been applied). The question that remains is whether
to apply: https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-July/176481.html
The point Nicolas raised is that no matter what we do, there exist
quite reasonable ffmpeg invocations that can mess up the terminal
(patch or no patch). All the patch does is remove a heuristic that
does not even work in all cases (which is impossible unless shell
configuration is changed with just 1-2 lines). It also improves
usability by fixing #2964.
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel