James Almer (2018-02-07): > Since reverting would be dirty, I'd prefer if we keep the discussion > about the desired API going and then apply the needed patches on top of > the current tree. > As long as we don't take weeks to do it (and do it before a release is > tagged), any kind of change to what is already committed is ok.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant with "virtually revoked". Let us hope people will not start using the API before we stabilize it. But I would like that people be more careful with it. Twice in a few days have patches been pushed while there were outstanding objections about the API. If it had been done on purpose, I think it would have been ground for revoking git commit rights. Now, as for the possible APIs for iterating: (A) this one using an opaque pointer and a _next() call; (B) using an index; (C) returning the whole list at once in a newly allocated array. Are there any missing? I am rather in favour of (C), because it is the one that puts the least constraint on the internal implementation. And it is very convenient for the caller. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
