On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 07:34:50AM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:01:51AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:30:27PM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote: > > > --- > > > doc/APIchanges | 2 +- > > > libavutil/motion_vector.h | 8 ++++---- > > > libavutil/version.h | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/APIchanges b/doc/APIchanges > > > index 1bed107..1fbeb09 100644 > > > --- a/doc/APIchanges > > > +++ b/doc/APIchanges > > > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ libavutil: 2014-08-09 > > > > > > API changes, most recent first: > > > > > > -2014-08-xx - xxxxxxx - lavu 54.5.100 - frame.h motion_vector.h > > > +2014-08-xx - b0352b1,xxxxxxx - lavu 54.6.100 - frame.h motion_vector.h > > > > what is "b0352b1,xxxxxxx" ? > > > > b0352b1 is the main commit, at 54.5.100 > xxxxxxx would be this "fixup" commit, at 54.6.100 > > We wouldn't really want the users to use the feature in 54.5.100 because > of the bug I'm fixing, but "b0352b1 - lavu 54.6.100" would leave a version > inconsistency. And OTOH referencing only the new hash doesn't give much > insight on the feature/change mentioned. >
One solution could be to clearly reference b0352b1 into the new commit, and make sure we reference the new hash in the 54.6 in APIChanges. Would that be fine? [...] -- Clément B.
pgpRD2cNqrdK4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
