Michael Krufky wrote: > Jeremy Hall wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the new year, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??? huh? > >>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 C.Y.M wrote: >>> >>>> Johannes Stezenbach wrote: >>>> >>>>> just to let you know that this report and fix is highly appreciated, >>>>> but I simply am short of time and didn't have time to look into >>>>> the details to verify your fix. It won't drop off my TODO-list. >>>>> >>>>> Would be cool if someone else had the time... >>>> >>>> >>>> Did anyone decide if this patch should be commited? >>> >>> >>> I was away for a while and didn't have time yet to look into this. >>> >>> I'm also somewhat disappointed that no one else wants >>> to look into this :-( >> >> >> oh I looked into it, and I reported back that it was GREAT! >> >> I was wondering why it didn't get committed. > > > I have tried this patch also, and all I can report is that it didnt > break anything, nor did it cause any improvements that I can visibly > detect. Looking at the patch by eye seems to make sense, but I didnt > have the time to look any deeper into it. > > Jeremy, can you share your experience with us in a little more detail > , most specifically, tell us why you think this is 'GREAT' ? Such a > comment makes me think that you noticed a world of difference after > applying it... A little elaboration might be all we need to decide on > applying this. > > IMHO, this is probably okay to commit to cvs. > It sounds quite logical.. It wouldn't break anything too. Probably the best to test this patch would be on lowbitrate streams on satellites like Hotbird .. ;-) It shouldn't make any difference otherwise. My antenna which was pointing at Hotbird, went down in a wind a while back, and i haven't replaced it yet. Manu
