On 4/19/2018 11:43 AM, wm4 wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:33:47 +0200 > Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > >> James Almer (2018-04-19): >>> Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as >>> well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. >> >> Can you explain why you think that? >> >> When advising on these changes and reviewing patches, I was very careful >> that they do not introduce API nor ABI changes. > > Your care is appreciated, but it still caused API changes and some > rather critical bugs. > >> Apart from bugs in protocols that were not fixed immediately, the only > > 6 months later is "immediately"? Strange sense of time.
He said "were not". > >> change visible for applications is if they register a custom callback >> for a packet protocol and yet decide to return 0 to indicate EOF. This >> was never a documented practice, is logically absurd (0 is a valid >> packet size) and inconsistent with similar practices (UDP socket do not >> return 0 for EOF). > > Applications could have relied on this behavior, though. Also not all > packet based I/O mechanisms need to be UDP or sockets. > > Yes, we all know EOF behavior isn't well documented, which means we > should cope with whatever behavior applications expect. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
