On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:

> Also, it would help deciding stuff if you, as a user, told us: if you
> had to write "scale=w=1536:h=512" instead of "scale=1536:512" to be
> completely sure that your scripts will not break on upgrade, would you
> consider that an unacceptable burden?

Obviously not for scripts written now or in the future by those who follow
this list, but old/delivered scripts may break and often those executing
them aren't the ones who composed them.

If the doc patch is being pushed, would you accept if I or others submitted
abbreviated alternates for some of the long option names that exist e.g. as
in loudnorm.
ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to