On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 22:50:19 +0200 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Jan Ekström (2018-04-18): > > While I have kind of felt like this for a while now, I am just not > > sure if we can find all the things where with or without mention > > things have been poked to fix issues with it, which would now have to > > all be reverted. Also we already angered API users once with this > > change (albeit I'm not sure if it ever ended up in release yet?), so > > I'm not sure if we want to do it again. Of course as I mentioned if > > this was never in any release then that is kind of not relevant. > > Might I ask how you propose to address the issue that required this > change in the first place? > > The convention ret=0 for EOF does not work for packtized packets. We had > complaints about issues caused by that. You cannot revert a solution > that works unless you have one that work better in view. There was a simple patch that would have solved that issue locally in the UDP code. This whole EOF thing was a non-issue and would not have required breaking so much other code. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
