|
|
@@ -1632,7 +1632,7 @@ do not attach several unrelated patches to the same mail. |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
Is the patch a unified diff? |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
Is the patch against latest ffmpeg SVN? |
|
|
|
Is the patch against latest FFmpeg SVN? |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
Are you subscribed to ffmpeg-dev? |
|
|
|
(the list is subscribers only due to spam) |
|
|
@@ -1640,22 +1640,24 @@ do not attach several unrelated patches to the same mail. |
|
|
|
Have you checked that the changes are minimal, so that the same cannot be |
|
|
|
achieved with a smaller patch and/or simpler final code? |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
If the change is to speed critical code did you benchmark it? |
|
|
|
If the change is to speed critical code, did you benchmark it? |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
Have you checked that the patch does not introduce buffer overflows or |
|
|
|
other security issues? |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
Is the patch made from the root of the source, so it can be applied with -p0? |
|
|
|
Is the patch created from the root of the source tree, so it can be |
|
|
|
applied with @code{patch -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) |
|
|
|
Is the mime type of the patch correct? It should be text/x-diff or |
|
|
|
text/x-patch or at least text/plain and not application/octet-stream. |
|
|
|
@item |
|
|
|
If the patch fixes a bug did you provide a verbose analysis of the bug? |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|