[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 541 bytes --]

Hi all

As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
That means in the next weeks probably!
If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
please help fixing them

Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
unless people feel thats a bad idea of course

thx

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad
people will find a way around the laws. -- Plato

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:35 AM Michael Niedermayer
<michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
> That means in the next weeks probably!
> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
> please help fixing them
>
> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
>

There were a few fixes we have in Fedora on top of 5.0 that would be
nice to have in upstream 5.1:

* http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292877.html
* http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292853.html
* http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/293194.html

Would it be possible to make sure these are in?


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Marton Balint]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022, Neal Gompa wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:35 AM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
>> That means in the next weeks probably!
>> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
>> please help fixing them
>>
>> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
>> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
>>
>
> There were a few fixes we have in Fedora on top of 5.0 that would be
> nice to have in upstream 5.1:
>
> * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292877.html
> * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292853.html
> * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/293194.html
>
> Would it be possible to make sure these are in?
>

These are already merged, except the last patch, which needs some further 
explanaition if this is cosmetic change or actually changes some behaviour 
(other than the possible user facing error message)

Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 4:59 PM Marton Balint <cus@passwd.hu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:35 AM Michael Niedermayer
> > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
> >> That means in the next weeks probably!
> >> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
> >> please help fixing them
> >>
> >> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
> >> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
> >>
> >
> > There were a few fixes we have in Fedora on top of 5.0 that would be
> > nice to have in upstream 5.1:
> >
> > * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292877.html
> > * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292853.html
> > * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/293194.html
> >
> > Would it be possible to make sure these are in?
> >
>
> These are already merged, except the last patch, which needs some further
> explanaition if this is cosmetic change or actually changes some behaviour
> (other than the possible user facing error message)

It basically just changes the user facing error message to clients
that interpret the errors to something that makes sense.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Marton Balint]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022, Neal Gompa wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 4:59 PM Marton Balint <cus@passwd.hu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:35 AM Michael Niedermayer
>> > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all
>> >>
>> >> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
>> >> That means in the next weeks probably!
>> >> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
>> >> please help fixing them
>> >>
>> >> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
>> >> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
>> >>
>> >
>> > There were a few fixes we have in Fedora on top of 5.0 that would be
>> > nice to have in upstream 5.1:
>> >
>> > * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292877.html
>> > * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/292853.html
>> > * http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2022-February/293194.html
>> >
>> > Would it be possible to make sure these are in?
>> >
>>
>> These are already merged, except the last patch, which needs some further
>> explanaition if this is cosmetic change or actually changes some behaviour
>> (other than the possible user facing error message)
>
> It basically just changes the user facing error message to clients
> that interpret the errors to something that makes sense.

Ok, applied with that additional info.

Thanks,
Marton
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1439 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:35:00PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
> That means in the next weeks probably!
> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
> please help fixing them
> 
> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course

i plan to branch 5.1 of master soon (in the next 3-7 days hopefully)
and do the release ~7 days afterwards. This assumes no major issues pop
up
if theres anything you are working on that i should wait for, reply here
and also (that one is important) tell me once you resolved the issue so i
dont have to guess from git commits if an issue got fully resolved

also 5.1 still needs a name i think
previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré, desitter, de broglie
feel free to add more
feel free to vote for anything

in case of a tie i will pick one of the tied winners

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The real ebay dictionary, page 1
"Used only once"    - "Some unspecified defect prevented a second use"
"In good condition" - "Can be repaird by experienced expert"
"As is" - "You wouldnt want it even if you were payed for it, if you knew ..."

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 07.07.2022 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:35:00PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
>> That means in the next weeks probably!
>> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
>> please help fixing them
>>
>> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
>> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
> 
> i plan to branch 5.1 of master soon (in the next 3-7 days hopefully)
> and do the release ~7 days afterwards. This assumes no major issues pop
> up
> if theres anything you are working on that i should wait for, reply here
> and also (that one is important) tell me once you resolved the issue so i
> dont have to guess from git commits if an issue got fully resolved
> 
> also 5.1 still needs a name i think
> previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
> Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré, desitter, de broglie
> feel free to add more
> feel free to vote for anything
> 
> in case of a tie i will pick one of the tied winners
> 
> thx

Would be cool to get ddagrab and the first GSoC filter in.
Both are on the ML and I plan to merge both in the next couple days, if 
no issues pop up.

ddagrab depends on things like the lavfi.c changes, but it seems like 
they are good to go now as well, so nothing should be a blocker.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[James Almer]

On 7/7/2022 5:51 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 07.07.2022 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:35:00PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
>>> That means in the next weeks probably!
>>> If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
>>> please help fixing them
>>>
>>> Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
>>> unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
>>
>> i plan to branch 5.1 of master soon (in the next 3-7 days hopefully)
>> and do the release ~7 days afterwards. This assumes no major issues pop
>> up
>> if theres anything you are working on that i should wait for, reply here
>> and also (that one is important) tell me once you resolved the issue so i
>> dont have to guess from git commits if an issue got fully resolved
>>
>> also 5.1 still needs a name i think
>> previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
>> Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, 
>> poincaré, desitter, de broglie
>> feel free to add more
>> feel free to vote for anything
>>
>> in case of a tie i will pick one of the tied winners
>>
>> thx
> 
> Would be cool to get ddagrab and the first GSoC filter in.
> Both are on the ML and I plan to merge both in the next couple days, if 
> no issues pop up.
> 
> ddagrab depends on things like the lavfi.c changes, but it seems like 
> they are good to go now as well, so nothing should be a blocker.

The lavfi changes, more specifically wrapped_avframe, still rely on 
sizeof(AVFrame) being used outside lavu. We really need to stop 
spreading its use and find a way to change this behavior.
I have tried like two different solutions and both were rejected, so 
it's not going to be me.

> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Timo Rothenpieler]

> The lavfi changes, more specifically wrapped_avframe, still rely on 
> sizeof(AVFrame) being used outside lavu. We really need to stop 
> spreading its use and find a way to change this behavior.
> I have tried like two different solutions and both were rejected, so 
> it's not going to be me.

wrapped_avframe is used all over the place in lavd already.
Is that really a problem, as long as it's within another libav* library?
Given we don't support mix-matching library versions in the first place.

The only real way around that would be a get_size function in lavu, and 
never using AVFrames on the stack, which is done in quite a lot of places.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 08/07/2022 12:17, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>> The lavfi changes, more specifically wrapped_avframe, still rely on 
>> sizeof(AVFrame) being used outside lavu. We really need to stop 
>> spreading its use and find a way to change this behavior.
>> I have tried like two different solutions and both were rejected, so 
>> it's not going to be me.
> 
> wrapped_avframe is used all over the place in lavd already.
> Is that really a problem, as long as it's within another libav* library?
> Given we don't support mix-matching library versions in the first place.

Also, thinking about it, wrapped_avframe does not actually rely on the 
size of AVFrame at all.
It's only set on the buffer as a purely informational thing.
The only actual data in the buffer is a pointer to the frame.
So more accurately, the size of the wrapped package could be sizeof(void*).
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[James Almer]

On 7/8/2022 7:23 AM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 08/07/2022 12:17, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>>> The lavfi changes, more specifically wrapped_avframe, still rely on 
>>> sizeof(AVFrame) being used outside lavu. We really need to stop 
>>> spreading its use and find a way to change this behavior.
>>> I have tried like two different solutions and both were rejected, so 
>>> it's not going to be me.
>>
>> wrapped_avframe is used all over the place in lavd already.
>> Is that really a problem, as long as it's within another libav* library?
>> Given we don't support mix-matching library versions in the first place.
> 
> Also, thinking about it, wrapped_avframe does not actually rely on the 
> size of AVFrame at all.
> It's only set on the buffer as a purely informational thing.

No, it's used by the "decoder"

https://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=blob;f=libavcodec/wrapped_avframe.c;h=06c274eed0b99e9ba5a703df963ef4c8f67dbe1c;hb=HEAD#l90

> The only actual data in the buffer is a pointer to the frame.
> So more accurately, the size of the wrapped package could be sizeof(void*).
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, at 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
> Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré, 
> desitter, de broglie

Did we not use Lorentz for 5.0? I'm ok for re-using it, though.
Else, I would suggest Maxwell.

jb

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
+33 672 704 734
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Paul B Mahol]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb@videolan.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, at 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
> > Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré,
> > desitter, de broglie
>
> Did we not use Lorentz for 5.0? I'm ok for re-using it, though.
> Else, I would suggest Maxwell.
>

Carl, there are many famous people with that name:

Sagan,
Gauss,
Jacobi,
Wieman,
Anderson,
etc..


>
> jb
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
> +33 672 704 734
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
>
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:36:54AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, at 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
> > Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré, 
> > desitter, de broglie
> 
> Did we not use Lorentz for 5.0? I'm ok for re-using it, though.
> Else, I would suggest Maxwell.

as said, my notes are poorly organized :)
ive removed Lorentz and added Maxwell

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

"Nothing to hide" only works if the folks in power share the values of
you and everyone you know entirely and always will -- Tom Scott


[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Leo Izen]

On 7/8/22 09:52, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:36:54AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, at 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
>>> Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré,
>>> desitter, de broglie
>>
>> Did we not use Lorentz for 5.0? I'm ok for re-using it, though.
>> Else, I would suggest Maxwell.
> 
> as said, my notes are poorly organized :)
> ive removed Lorentz and added Maxwell
> 
> thx
> 

If this is going to be an LTS release why not Riemann, after a very LTS 
problem in mathematics :)

- Leo Izen (thebombzen)
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Andreas Rheinhardt]

Leo Izen:
> On 7/8/22 09:52, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:36:54AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, at 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> previosuly suggested names i found in my very unorgnaized notes:
>>>> Mellin, Gauss, Galois, Viterbi, Darwin, Von Neumann, lorentz, poincaré,
>>>> desitter, de broglie
>>>
>>> Did we not use Lorentz for 5.0? I'm ok for re-using it, though.
>>> Else, I would suggest Maxwell.
>>
>> as said, my notes are poorly organized :)
>> ive removed Lorentz and added Maxwell
>>
>> thx
>>
> 
> If this is going to be an LTS release why not Riemann, after a very LTS
> problem in mathematics :)
> 

+1 (presuming Riemann has not been used before).

- Andreas
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.1

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1342 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:47:57PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:35:00PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi all
> > 
> > As was discussed previously the 5.1 release should be in june/july
> > That means in the next weeks probably!
> > If you know of any regressions, security issues or other major bugs,
> > please help fixing them
> > 
> > Also as was suggested before, this release will get the "LTS" tag
> > unless people feel thats a bad idea of course
> 
> i plan to branch 5.1 of master soon (in the next 3-7 days hopefully)
> and do the release ~7 days afterwards. This assumes no major issues pop
> up
> if theres anything you are working on that i should wait for, reply here
> and also (that one is important) tell me once you resolved the issue so i
> dont have to guess from git commits if an issue got fully resolved

its about 7 days since the branch, are there any remaining issues someone is
working on ?
if not ill make the release after applying and backporting a few more
bugfixes that ive posted to the ML but not applied yet

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your
own failings. Then you will forget your anger. -- Epictetus

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".