From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ptmx.org (ptmx.org [178.63.28.110]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD36A755F4 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:53:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.14] (chello062178118086.5.14.vie.surfer.at [62.178.118.86]) by ptmx.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 339FD20BE2; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:53:56 +0200 (CEST) To: Khem Raj References: <1443390491-23728-1-git-send-email-dv@pseudoterminal.org> <1443390491-23728-2-git-send-email-dv@pseudoterminal.org> <5608E1BA.2060301@pseudoterminal.org> From: Carlos Rafael Giani Message-ID: <5608E404.9040107@pseudoterminal.org> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:53:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] gstreamer1.0-plugins-base: upgrade to version 1.6.0 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:53:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am 2015-09-28 um 08:47 schrieb Khem Raj: > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Carlos Rafael Giani > wrote: >> The other patches in the list above, however, need to be reworked to apply >> against 1.6. >> 0001-basetextoverlay-make-memory-copy-when-video-buffer-s.patch has been >> rejected by upstream, >> handle-audio-video-decoder-error.patch is under discussion. >> taglist-not-send-to-down-stream-if-all-the-frame-cor.patch hasn't been >> looked at yet by upstream. >> >> Since these no longer apply cleanly against 1.6.0, we anyway have no option >> but to delete them and wait until the authors reworked them. > hmmm, I would have preferred a conclusive situation where we know > exactly what they fixed and what we dont have when we drop them > somewhere in commit message, ideally they should be forward ported > along with recipe upgrades but its ok if you dont feel comfortable and > want to defer it to original submitters but then please CC the > submitters so they know whats needed of them Yep, I already sent them a mail about the necessary rework a month ago, when I was first trying out release candidates for 1.6, but I'll give them a status update. As for the patch that got rejected by upstream (but that I didn't delete, because it can still be applied), do I delete this one as well? Is there a general preference in such situations? I personally would prefer to stick with what upstream does.