On 02.01.2016 17:12, James Almer wrote: > On 1/2/2016 8:42 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >> On 01.01.2016 15:19, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> Its a while since 2.8 so unless there are objections i will make a >>> 2.9 or if people prefer a 3.0 within the next month or so >> >> I think using 3.0 would better due to the backwards incompatible >> API changes. >> >> We should do this always to give the major version a defined meaning. >> That way we would use semantic versioning[1]. > > We didn't for 2.4, which also had a project wide major bump.
Yes, but I think it would have been better. > And really, > those who care about ABI breaks (distros) and library versions (distros > and API users) don't care about the arbitrary version of the ffmpeg > package as a whole. > > Some time ago it was argued that the ffmpeg version should for example > get a major bump when some considerable changes were made to the CLI > tools. Users that download ffmpeg and don't care about the libraries > look at that version, and they are the ones affected by all and any > changes made to command line options for those tools. But this is a quite arbitrary thing, as the command line interface has lots of changes in every version. > Personally I'd call this one 2.9, and then the next can be 3.0 instead > of 2.10. That way the major version has no meaning at all. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
