On Wed, 25 Jan 2023, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023, at 21:08, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023, James Almer wrote:
On 1/24/2023 12:45 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
So to summarize the discussion so far:
* nobody is strongly arguing for an instability period after the bump,
and there are good reasons against it, therefore we should NOT have
one
* the bump can be done either as bump-then-remove or remove-then-bump
* there are advantages and disadvantages for both of those, nobody
expressed a strong preference for either, so you can keep this as
is
Please correct me if I misunderstood or missed something, or somebody
has a new opinion.
Since the instability period doesn't seem popular, if anyone has some patches
for ABI changes (enum value or field offset changes, removing avpriv_
functions we forgot about, etc), then please send them asap so i can push
them all at the same time.
Ok, I can send the frame number changes tomorrow. When do you plan to do
the actual bump? I assumed the last 5.x release should be branched first.
Why? 5.1 was already branched out.
And is missing 6 months of development. IMHO it is friendly to
users/packagers to have a release which have the latest features and
API/ABI compatible with older releases. Distros or third party
packagers can provide upgrades without breaking dependant apps.
We followed the same path for the last major bump. Also I find it
better to let things cool down a bit before we do a 6.0 release with the
new major versions, even if the "unstable" period is 1 week only or less.
Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
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".
