Open CAHollenbeck opened 6 years ago
Thanks for the PR. I added comments in the code.
Merging #28 into master will decrease coverage by
0.12%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #28 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.13% 87.01% -0.13%
==========================================
Files 41 41
Lines 6251 6345 +94
==========================================
+ Hits 5447 5521 +74
- Misses 804 824 +20
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
video/private/opengl.rkt | 68.8% <0%> (-4%) |
:arrow_down: |
video/private/video-canvas.rkt | 79.39% <0%> (-2.82%) |
:arrow_down: |
video/private/installer.rkt | 22.58% <0%> (-2.42%) |
:arrow_down: |
video/private/video.rkt | 79.71% <0%> (-1.14%) |
:arrow_down: |
video/base.rkt | 91.19% <0%> (-0.92%) |
:arrow_down: |
video/private/ffmpeg/constants.rkt | 98.8% <0%> (-0.09%) |
:arrow_down: |
video/core.rkt | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
video/private/ffmpeg-pipeline.rkt | 88.93% <0%> (+1.27%) |
:arrow_up: |
video/render.rkt | 85.49% <0%> (+1.75%) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1936d02...f5880ec. Read the comment docs.
What is your reasoning for moving the Multitracks and merges section to before transitions? Given that transitions only apply to playlists it seems silly to start with playlists, jump to multitracks, and then cover transitions.
Looking at your commit message, it looks like you answered my previous message:
What is your reasoning for moving the Multitracks and merges section to before transitions? Given that transitions only apply to playlists it seems silly to start with playlists, jump to multitracks, and then cover transitions.
multitracks are mentioned before transitions in Playlists, so Multitr…
Anyway, this seems odd to me, since transitions are more closely bound (logically) to playlists. Thus, it seems very odd to me to have:
The order:
Makes more more sense to me. If you want, you could merge them so that the structure is more like:
Has there been any more progress on this?
Just another quick ping to here about the status of this PR.
"language declaration" may need to be called something else, but I'd like some similar description of what it is.