Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

Le primidi 21 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > Iam a bit puzzled that you really seem not to see what damage this > would do. I am a lot puzzled that you really imagine it would do such damage. > All scripts, all applications using libavfilter must be changed to > use the

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

Hi On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Le decadi 20 thermidor, an CCXXV, Marton Balint a écrit : > > That is why I believe a breaking change such as the overlay filter option > > order change should be mentioned in the Changelog. > > Yes, you are completely right. >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

Le decadi 20 thermidor, an CCXXV, Marton Balint a écrit : > That is why I believe a breaking change such as the overlay filter option > order change should be mentioned in the Changelog. Yes, you are completely right. Also, let me clarify something: pushing this documentation change does not

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:03:51AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > > >Lets take a step back and look at this > > > > > >There are some rarely used options in multi input filters like > > >overlay which break. > > >Noone even noticed except me > > > > > >And you propose to declare the most used

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:25:27AM +0200, Marton Balint wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > >>L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > >>>What do you mean? What i suggested would be

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Gyan wrote: On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:11 PM, John Warburton wrote: if an old FFmpeg script of mine breaks, as they have on a couple of occasions, isn't it logical for a user of the command line to go straight to the documentation, and the answer

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:11 PM, John Warburton wrote: > if an old FFmpeg script of mine breaks, as they have on a couple of > occasions, isn't it logical for a user of the command line to go > straight to the documentation, and the answer (and the fix) always > seems to

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Nicolas George wrote: >> >Lets take a step back and look at this >> > >> >There are some rarely used options in multi input filters like >> >overlay which break. >> >Noone even noticed except me ... > Now, to all that stated a negative opinion

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

> >Lets take a step back and look at this > > > >There are some rarely used options in multi input filters like > >overlay which break. > >Noone even noticed except me > > > >And you propose to declare the most used syntax from every filter > >unstable. > > > >This just doesnt add up, its like

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Michael Niedermayer wrote: On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : What do you mean? What i suggested would be done each time an option is removed or added anywhere but at the end, both of

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > > What do you mean? What i suggested would be done each time an option is > > removed or added anywhere but at the end, both of which afaik are > > uncommon cases. > > It's

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > What do you mean? What i suggested would be done each time an option is > removed or added anywhere but at the end, both of which afaik are > uncommon cases. > It's not something that requires a rewrite of the current codebase. I mean that

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On 8/5/2017 6:17 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : >> Indeed, but that's something that should have been done once AVOptions >> gained the shorthand feature with the CLI, not several years down the >> line and hundreds of scripts and tutorials

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > Indeed, but that's something that should have been done once AVOptions > gained the shorthand feature with the CLI, not several years down the > line and hundreds of scripts and tutorials potentially considering it a > fixed syntax. > > At

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On 8/5/2017 2:15 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : >> Users may not know that it's a shortcut to begin with. > > It is exactly the reason I am proposing to document it here. Indeed, but that's something that should have been done once AVOptions

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit : > Users may not know that it's a shortcut to begin with. It is exactly the reason I am proposing to document it here. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On 8/5/2017 1:42 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : >> I think you do not realize how annoying this would be in practice >> >> Users do not know all these nuances that one syntax is stable and work >> and one works but is not future proof. It

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > I think you do not realize how annoying this would be in practice > > Users do not know all these nuances that one syntax is stable and work > and one works but is not future proof. It also violates the priniple of > least surprise.

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:42:08PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > > This is ambigous and if interpreted litterally > > then even a scale=320:240 would no longer be guranteed to work > > but would require scale=width=320:height=240 to

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > This is ambigous and if interpreted litterally > then even a scale=320:240 would no longer be guranteed to work > but would require scale=width=320:height=240 to be used. That is intentional. Note that w=320:h=240 is enough: four

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:42:06AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nicolas George > --- > doc/filters.texi | 5 + > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/filters.texi b/doc/filters.texi > index 7e5a9a625a..886cd5a7e8 100644 > ---