diff options
| author | Michael Niedermayer <michaelni@gmx.at> | 2007-04-17 13:07:31 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Michael Niedermayer <michaelni@gmx.at> | 2007-04-17 13:07:31 +0000 |
| commit | dd597cd7b0f81b36be8c7f65af125f5247755198 (patch) | |
| tree | 6a653ae02f13a62511f66c3e9ed020b2dd330b33 /doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi | |
| parent | b092d033958f805158c673f588a87506d64d413a (diff) | |
patch submission checklist
Originally committed as revision 8745 to svn://svn.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg/trunk
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi | 47 |
1 files changed, 47 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi b/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi index 8825874b3d..52460492cd 100644 --- a/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi +++ b/doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi @@ -1623,6 +1623,53 @@ and has no lrint()') Also please if you send several patches, send each patch as seperate mail, dont attach several unrelated patches to the same mail. +@section patch submission checklist + +@enumerate +@item + Do the regression tests pass with the patch applied? +@item + Is the patch a unified diff? +@item + Is the patch against latest ffmpeg SVN? +@item + Are you subscribed to ffmpeg-dev? + (the list is subscribers only due to spam) +@item + Have you checked that the changes are minimal, so that the same cannot be + achived with a smaller patch and/or simpler final code? +@item + If the change is to speed critical code did you benchmark it? +@item + Have you checked that the patch does not intruduce buffer overflows or + other security issues? +@item + Is the patch made from the root of the source, so it can be applied with -p0? +@item + Does the patch not mix functional and cosmetic changes? +@item + Is the patch attached to the email you send? +@item + Is the mime type of the patch correct? (not application/octet-stream) +@item + If the patch fixes a bug did you provide a verbose analysis of the bug? +@item + If the patch fixes a bug did you provide enough information including + a sample, so the bug can be reproduced and the fix can be verified? +@item + Did you provide a verbose summary about what the patch does change? +@item + Did you provide a verbose explanation why it changes things like it does? +@item + Did you provide a verbose summary of the user vissible advantages and + disadvantages if the patch is applied? +@item + Did you provide an example so we can verify the new feature added by the + patch easily? +@item + If you did any benchmarks, did you provide them in the mail? +@end enumerate + @section Patch review process All patches posted to ffmpeg-devel will be reviewed, unless they contain a |