L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > What do you mean? What i suggested would be done each time an option is > removed or added anywhere but at the end, both of which afaik are > uncommon cases. > It's not something that requires a rewrite of the current codebase.
I mean that since I consider the break bearable (somebody upgrades a piece of software, they MUST test the scripts that depend on it, and fixing the issue once and for all is easy), I am not willing to spend my time implementing (and testing, for this kind of thing that takes time) the deprecation-warning-and-backward-compatibility dance. Therefore, I think anybody opposing that change has three choices: propose a solution (possibly a patch) that does not require extra work, present or future, from the lavfi maintainers; own up that they are blocking progress in the lavfi cleanup; or yield. Note: to help the transition, I am perfectly willing to write a ChangeLog entry, that does not take much time: - The order of options in filters is no longer considered stable. If long-term stability is necessary (i.e. for scripts), use named options (e.g. overlay=50:100 -> overlay=x=50:y=100). We have caused much more severe breakage in the past (especially considering that only minor options change, and they were usually set by name anyway), and ones that were much harder to fix. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
