Hi On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:03:17AM -0000, Wolfram Gloger wrote: > Hi, > > > when someone submits a clean well split patch which passes review > > Ahem. It is hardly obvious how this could be split further. > But I'll try anyway. > > The "first" part (which I will append below) was already ok'ed > by you before, just not committed. i complained about a url_ftell/url_fseek suboptimality and the one below is wrong it mixes CUR and SET also please attach patches so they wont get mangled (if they arent mangled iam fine with inline too of course ...) > > For the other part, there has been _zero_ review or comments so far, > in particular there was no reasoning why it wasn't clean.. could you give me some hint on which mail contained that second part? subject/date? [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070130/9f143c2a/attachment.pgp>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4