1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
|
Libav's bug/patch/feature request tracker manual
================================================
NOTE: This is a draft.
Overview:
---------
Libav uses Roundup for tracking issues, new issues and changes to
existing issues can be done through a web interface and through email.
It is possible to subscribe to individual issues by adding yourself to the
nosy list or to subscribe to the ffmpeg-issues mailing list which receives
a mail for every change to every issue. Replies to such mails will also
be properly added to the respective issue.
(the above does all work already after light testing)
The subscription URL for the ffmpeg-issues list is:
http://live.polito/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-issues
The URL of the webinterface of the tracker is:
http(s)://roundup.libav.org/
Note the URLs in this document are obfuscated, you must append the top level
domain for non-profit organizations to the tracker, and of Italy to the
mailing list.
Email Interface:
----------------
There is a mailing list to which all new issues and changes to existing issues
are sent. You can subscribe through
http://live.polito/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-issues
Replies to messages there will have their text added to the specific issues.
Attachments will be added as if they had been uploaded via the web interface.
You can change the status, substatus, topic, ... by changing the subject in
your reply like:
Re: [issue94] register_avcodec and allcodecs.h [type=patch;status=open;substatus=approved]
Roundup will then change things as you requested and remove the [...] from
the subject before forwarding the mail to the mailing list.
NOTE: issue = (bug report || patch || feature request)
Type:
-----
bug
An error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in FFmpeg or libav* that
prevents it from behaving as intended.
feature request
Request of support for encoding or decoding of a new codec, container
or variant.
Request of support for more, less or plain different output or behavior
where the current implementation cannot be considered wrong.
patch
A patch as generated by diff which conforms to the patch submission and
development policy.
Priority:
---------
critical
Bugs and patches which deal with data loss and security issues.
No feature request can be critical.
important
Bugs which make Libav unusable for a significant number of users, and
patches fixing them.
Examples here might be completely broken MPEG-4 decoding or a build issue
on Linux.
While broken 4xm decoding or a broken OS/2 build would not be important,
the separation to normal is somewhat fuzzy.
For feature requests this priority would be used for things many people
want.
normal
minor
Bugs and patches about things like spelling errors, "mp2" instead of
"mp3" being shown and such.
Feature requests about things few people want or which do not make a big
difference.
wish
Something that is desirable to have but that there is no urgency at
all to implement, e.g. something completely cosmetic like a website
restyle or a personalized doxy template or the Libav logo.
This priority is not valid for bugs.
Status:
-------
new
initial state
open
intermediate states
closed
final state
Type/Status/Substatus:
----------
*/new/new
Initial state of new bugs, patches and feature requests submitted by
users.
*/open/open
Issues which have been briefly looked at and which did not look outright
invalid.
This implicates that no real more detailed state applies yet. Conversely,
the more detailed states below implicate that the issue has been briefly
looked at.
*/closed/duplicate
Bugs, patches or feature requests which are duplicates.
Note that patches dealing with the same thing in a different way are not
duplicates.
Note, if you mark something as duplicate, do not forget setting the
superseder so bug reports are properly linked.
*/closed/invalid
Bugs caused by user errors, random ineligible or otherwise nonsense stuff.
*/closed/needs_more_info
Issues for which some information has been requested by the developers,
but which has not been provided by anyone within reasonable time.
bug/open/reproduced
Bugs which have been reproduced.
bug/open/analyzed
Bugs which have been analyzed and where it is understood what causes them
and which exact chain of events triggers them. This analysis should be
available as a message in the bug report.
Note, do not change the status to analyzed without also providing a clear
and understandable analysis.
This state implicates that the bug either has been reproduced or that
reproduction is not needed as the bug is already understood.
bug/open/needs_more_info
Bug reports which are incomplete and or where more information is needed
from the submitter or another person who can provide it.
This state implicates that the bug has not been analyzed or reproduced.
Note, the idea behind needs_more_info is to offload work from the
developers to the users whenever possible.
bug/closed/fixed
Bugs which have to the best of our knowledge been fixed.
bug/closed/wont_fix
Bugs which we will not fix. Possible reasons include legality, high
complexity for the sake of supporting obscure corner cases, speed loss
for similarly esoteric purposes, et cetera.
This also means that we would reject a patch.
If we are just too lazy to fix a bug then the correct state is open
and unassigned. Closed means that the case is closed which is not
the case if we are just waiting for a patch.
bug/closed/works_for_me
Bugs for which sufficient information was provided to reproduce but
reproduction failed - that is the code seems to work correctly to the
best of our knowledge.
patch/open/approved
Patches which have been reviewed and approved by a developer.
Such patches can be applied anytime by any other developer after some
reasonable testing (compile + regression tests + does the patch do
what the author claimed).
patch/open/needs_changes
Patches which have been reviewed and need changes to be accepted.
patch/closed/applied
Patches which have been applied.
patch/closed/rejected
Patches which have been rejected.
feature_request/open/needs_more_info
Feature requests where it is not clear what exactly is wanted
(these also could be closed as invalid ...).
feature_request/closed/implemented
Feature requests which have been implemented.
feature_request/closed/wont_implement
Feature requests which will not be implemented. The reasons here could
be legal, philosophical or others.
Note, please do not use type-status-substatus combinations other than the
above without asking on libav-devel first!
Note2, if you provide the requested info do not forget to remove the
needs_more_info substate.
Topic:
------
A topic is a tag you should add to your issue in order to make grouping them
easier.
avcodec
issues in libavcodec/*
avformat
issues in libavformat/*
avutil
issues in libavutil/*
regression test
issues in tests/*
ffmpeg
issues in or related to ffmpeg.c
ffplay
issues in or related to ffplay.c
ffserver
issues in or related to ffserver.c
build system
issues in or related to configure/Makefile
regression
bugs which were working in a past revision
roundup
issues related to our issue tracker
|
