On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-01-20 03:05:09) > > PS: iam not sure i fully understood the reason behind why versions should be > > set to "wrong" values during some period, so as always i might be missing > > something > > The reason is that after the major bump, the API and ABI are declared to > be unstable for some period, so people can freely > - break ABI, e.g. by reordering struct members > - modify API added during the instability period in an arbitrary way > without a new major bump for every such change, that would be normally > required. > > My concern is that the instability period is quite long and there is > very little indication for our users that they cannot depend on the > ABI/API being stable. So I'm proposing to introduce some mechanism to > make this more visible for our callers. > > Alternatively, we could just not have an instability period at all.
Does anyone plan to use the next bumps instability period for anything ? If so, i assume theres a good reason why it cannot be done without such period easily? If theres noone -> easy solution, we need no instability period ATM. If theres someone, i would ask that someone how long it needs to be and write that down in APIchanges. Maybe as in "API is unstable becuase of X until 2033-11-11 a new #define LIBAVCODEC_UNSTABLE could be added but izt feels a bit overengeneered. This whole thing is more a exception, isnt it? thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State. -- Vladimir Lenin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
