Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 05:53:59PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi all > > its a while since FFmpeg 2.5, so its getting time to make 2.6 > if you want something in it or something fixed, now is your last > chance ;) > > About the name if noone suggests something then ill pick a random > scientist from the list i have from past suggestions 2.6 release made, 2.6.1 will be made in 1 week, if you have any tested bugfixes you have maybe 6 days to backport to release/2.6 [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:41:41PM +0100, Robert Krüger wrote: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > its a while since FFmpeg 2.5, so its getting time to make 2.6 > > if you want something in it or something fixed, now is your last > > chance ;) > > > > About the name if noone suggests something then ill pick a random > > scientist from the list i have from past suggestions > > > > > Since it not having been part of a release was an argument for allowing to > break API to fix the default for writing the colr atom (which a number of > people found more sensible), it would be nice to have that in before, > because otherwise that argument would no longer hold after 2.6 is out, > resulting in a rather bad situation with both options in there for a while. > How much time would there be to submit a patch that changes the default? there is no strict cast in stone release date, so i do not know i wanted to do the release soon, i do not know if that will work out there are still some things i wanted to test which may delay things but if things are all working and tested we might release tomorrow or it might be in a week, i dont know [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Let us carefully observe those good qualities wherein our enemies excel us and endeavor to excel them, by avoiding what is faulty, and imitating what is excellent in them. -- Plutarch signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi all > > its a while since FFmpeg 2.5, so its getting time to make 2.6 > if you want something in it or something fixed, now is your last > chance ;) > > About the name if noone suggests something then ill pick a random > scientist from the list i have from past suggestions > > Since it not having been part of a release was an argument for allowing to break API to fix the default for writing the colr atom (which a number of people found more sensible), it would be nice to have that in before, because otherwise that argument would no longer hold after 2.6 is out, resulting in a rather bad situation with both options in there for a while. How much time would there be to submit a patch that changes the default? ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
On 01/03/15 6:17 PM, Clément Bœsch wrote: > I might help writing the RELEASE_NOTES. Anything not present in the > Changelog that I should mention? Particular optimizations, area where a > large amount of fixes happened (and are not going to be backported), OPW, > or other various project changes? VP9 asm by Ronald that made the codec usable on x86_32 and also pre-ssse3 CPUs like Phenom (Even dual core Athlons can run 1080p 30fps VP9 content now). Pretty good argument to convince Google and Mozilla to use ffvp9 IMO :P. HEVC improvements could also be mentioned (C and asm performance improvements, and monochrome sequence support). ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 10:17:15PM +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 05:53:59PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > Hi all > > > > its a while since FFmpeg 2.5, so its getting time to make 2.6 > > if you want something in it or something fixed, now is your last > > chance ;) > > > > About the name if noone suggests something then ill pick a random > > scientist from the list i have from past suggestions > > > > I might help writing the RELEASE_NOTES. Anything not present in the thanks! > Changelog that I should mention? Particular optimizations, area where a > large amount of fixes happened (and are not going to be backported), OPW, > or other various project changes? if i knew something i would have added it to the Changelog probably so i cant think of anything but iam sure forgetting somthing ... > > BTW, do we want to encourage occasional contributors and companies to > contribute more by mentioning them in a thanks section? Quickly skimming > through the history I see NVIDIA, Samsung, Collabora, ... What do people > think? See the bottom of http://i3wm.org/downloads/RELEASE-NOTES-4.9.txt > for an example (yeah I know it's not the first time I pick that same > model). sure, possible [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 05:53:59PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi all > > its a while since FFmpeg 2.5, so its getting time to make 2.6 > if you want something in it or something fixed, now is your last > chance ;) > > About the name if noone suggests something then ill pick a random > scientist from the list i have from past suggestions > I might help writing the RELEASE_NOTES. Anything not present in the Changelog that I should mention? Particular optimizations, area where a large amount of fixes happened (and are not going to be backported), OPW, or other various project changes? BTW, do we want to encourage occasional contributors and companies to contribute more by mentioning them in a thanks section? Quickly skimming through the history I see NVIDIA, Samsung, Collabora, ... What do people think? See the bottom of http://i3wm.org/downloads/RELEASE-NOTES-4.9.txt for an example (yeah I know it's not the first time I pick that same model). Last thing, anyone to have a look to FATE and see if something is relevant for fixing before the release? I see that hevc still seems to fail a test with threading for instance. Don't we want to get this fixed before the release? -- Clément B. pgp9WH1UeYAay.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 2.6 release
Hi all its a while since FFmpeg 2.5, so its getting time to make 2.6 if you want something in it or something fixed, now is your last chance ;) About the name if noone suggests something then ill pick a random scientist from the list i have from past suggestions -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem conveniently. New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
