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-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
