On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:00 PM Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 18:46, Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> wrote: > > > Feb 19, 2023, 18:43 by kier...@obe.tv: > > > > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 17:36, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > > > > > >> Obviously, if we merge it now, and big enough issues are found > > >> > > >>> which we couldn't fix immediately, I'd have no problem reverting > > >>> the Vulkan patches from the 6.0 branch. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> A major LTS release is not your development sandbox. > > >> > > >> Kieran > > >> > > > > > > Correction, 6.0 is not an LTS. Nonetheless, it's not your sandbox. > > > > > > > If new features don't go in, the project dies. > > Everyone but seems to dislike new features. > > > > Sure, then put your features in early in the dev cycle, not days before a > major release. >
This is not a reasonable response, especially to someone who is volunteering their time to develop features for a project. If it misses 6.0, it sucks. My concern though is that major version bumps are supposed to be ABI/API breaks, if this patchset doesn't land in 6.0, does that mean it'd have to be pushed off to 7.0 if it makes public API changes? If that's the case, I'd rather request 6.0 to be delayed to get this to land. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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".
