On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 07:12:54PM +0100, Lynne wrote: > 2 Jan 2022, 18:11 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > > > On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 05:28:24PM +0100, Lynne wrote: > > > >> 2 Jan 2022, 16:52 by zane@zanevaniperen.com: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > On 3/1/22 01:09, James Almer wrote: > >> > > >> >>>> Reverting something in the release branch is already going to be dirty > >> >>>> no matter what, because we do a minor bump to ensure the release has its > >> >>>> own soname. Right now that'd mean 5.0 will be lavf 59.13, while lacking > >> >>>> a demuxer available in lavf 59.12 > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Depends on what you mean by "lacking a demuxer"... One (hacky) option would > >> >>> be to replace it with a stub implementation that always fails. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Or tag it as experimental. > >> >> > >> > > >> > That's much better. If we're not willing to wait, then I suggest we do this. > >> > > >> > >> I'd rather have it reverted in master, branch 5.0, and add it back and bump minor > >> again. I'm not willing to wait for a month to get fuzzing, the release is way > >> overdue as-is. We generally don't put experimental on decoders or demuxers. > >> > > > > I think if we dont want it in the release either as you suggest > > revert in master or mark as experimental in master before the branch > > > > having special cases in the release branch feels a bit iffy > > > > Okay, I can live with an experimental flag on it for the time being. Ok, please add that experimental flag then thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even known they had done so. -- Xenophanes