Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 00/26] Major library version bump

[Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>]

Quoting Marton Balint (2023-01-21 23:00:52)
> 
> 
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-01-20 03:05:09)
> >>> PS: iam not sure i fully understood the reason behind why versions should be
> >>> set to "wrong" values during some period, so as always i might be missing
> >>> something
> >>
> >> The reason is that after the major bump, the API and ABI are declared to
> >> be unstable for some period, so people can freely
> >> - break ABI, e.g. by reordering struct members
> >> - modify API added during the instability period in an arbitrary way
> >> without a new major bump for every such change, that would be normally
> >> required.
> >>
> >> My concern is that the instability period is quite long and there is
> >> very little indication for our users that they cannot depend on the
> >> ABI/API being stable. So I'm proposing to introduce some mechanism to
> >> make this more visible for our callers.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, we could just not have an instability period at all.
> >
> > Does anyone plan to use the next bumps instability period for anything ?
> > If so, i assume theres a good reason why it cannot be done without such
> > period easily?
> 
> AVCodecContext->frame_number should be changed to int64_t. I guess you 
> could do something similar which was done for buffer_size_t, but that 
> seems like a lot of extra work and ifdefry for questionable benefit.

Not breaking callers seems like a very solid benefit to me.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".