[libav-devel] [PATCH 20/20] Bump major versions of all libraries
vittorio.giovara at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 11:03:10 CEST 2015
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
<andreas.cadhalpun at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 24.08.2015 13:44, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero at gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 28/07/15 15:41, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero at gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/07/15 15:30, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>> I believe to see general consensus towards applying the set as is.
> There is no consensus for that.
There is, consensus does not need to be unanimous, and so far only you
have been expressing concerns (multiple times).
>> I've added a skeleton to the wiki
>> (https://wiki.libav.org/Migration/12) so that we can properly document
>> the necessary changes before we release. Any help with that is of
>> course welcome.
> I have a work-in-progress API-porting-guide.
if you're talking about the patch set you sent it, I don't believe
it's a good idea adding yet-another-doc-file to the tree, it mostly
duplicates APIChanges and its contents are much better off on a wiki,
where it can be quickly updated and edited. Your efforts are indeed
commendable and I look forward to seeing the wiki page I linked filled
>> If no objections I'll push this set in the following days.
> Can you explain why you believe it makes any kind of sense to remove
> widely used APIs like FF_API_PIX_FMT/FF_API_AVCODEC_FRAME, while
> keeping completely useless ones like FF_API_MISSING_SAMPLE?
I was afraid someone would point out it's less than two years old.
Jokes aside, missing_sample can go as well if you insist, while for
the other two you mention do you have any other argument than being
"widely used"? I believe we went over and over explaining why it's a
good a idea to remove those, not sure how beneficial it is to iterate
More information about the libav-devel