Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:31:59AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > >> wrote: > > >> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> >> > > Hi > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major > > >> >> > > release > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > >> >> > > Any name suggestions ? > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the > > >> >> > > next weeks > > >> >> > > > >> >> > more time has passed than intended ... > > >> >> > > > >> >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > > >> >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > > >> >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > > >> >> > longer ago > > >> >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > >> >> > > >> >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the > > >> >> next > > >> >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me > > >> >> just to > > >> >> be sure if theres an issue) > > >> >> > > >> >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > > >> >> release/4.0 > > >> >> and then make the release finally > > >> >> > > >> >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. > > >> >> > > >> >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had > > >> >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > > >> >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > release/4.0 branched > > >> > next is the release in a few days. > > >> > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > >> > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > >> > > >> I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > > >> tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > > >> module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure > > >> breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > > >> Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > > >> resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > > > > > well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > > > so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > > > Both of my changes have been applied, so nothing on my side any longer. > > ok, i wanted to make the release today but its getting later than ideal. > No point in rushing this by a few hours i guess > > so next target is tomorrow early afternoon. > delays are very possible of course if anything delays it > > ill do a bit more testing before i go to sleep > > Btw if someone wants to write anything like release notes or a news > entry ... 4.0 release made, ill leave writing the news entry to people who can write english without a spell checker 4.0.1 is planned to be released in 2 weeks. Sooner if major bugs are found, later if something delays it or theres nothing major. So please continue pushing bugfixes to release/4.0 (and older release branches if you like) Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > >> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> >> > > Hi > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major > >> >> > > release > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> >> > > Any name suggestions ? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the > >> >> > > next weeks > >> >> > > >> >> > more time has passed than intended ... > >> >> > > >> >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > >> >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > >> >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer > >> >> > ago > >> >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > >> >> > >> >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the > >> >> next > >> >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me > >> >> just to > >> >> be sure if theres an issue) > >> >> > >> >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > >> >> release/4.0 > >> >> and then make the release finally > >> >> > >> >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. > >> >> > >> >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had > >> >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > >> >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > >> > > >> > > >> > release/4.0 branched > >> > next is the release in a few days. > >> > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > >> > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > >> > >> I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > >> tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > >> module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure > >> breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > >> Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > >> resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > > > well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > > so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > Both of my changes have been applied, so nothing on my side any longer. ok, i wanted to make the release today but its getting later than ideal. No point in rushing this by a few hours i guess so next target is tomorrow early afternoon. delays are very possible of course if anything delays it ill do a bit more testing before i go to sleep Btw if someone wants to write anything like release notes or a news entry ... thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:01:56 +0200 Nicolas George wrote: > James Almer (2018-04-19): > > It would have not been backwards compatible in such scenario to load at > > runtime an hypotetical 3.4.x lavf library with that change in an > > application that was built against 3.3.x or older. Regardless of 0 being > > defined as EOF or not in documentation, the behavior of one library > > would have not been the same as the other, at least as i said above, > > without the compat change you eventually committed. > > I did not remember the compat code was added afterwards. Anyway, it > excludes packet callbacks on purpose. > > The thing is, we could NOT fix the initial bug (EOF caused by empty UDP > packets, reported by an user). It just was not possible. Apart from > leaving the bug, there were two options to fix this: > > - break empty packet for all applications and all packets protocols, or > > - break packet callbacks returning 0 for EOF. - add a flag that controls the wanted behavior - return a special error code for 0 sized packets which users can treat as non-fatal (seems justified for such an obscure corner case) > Since empty packets are legitimate, and even used in a few multimedia > protocols, while callbacks returning 0 are using an undocumented and > illogical feature, there was little doubt about which one to break. There's still no way to use that via API (if I read retry_transfer_wrapper() and all the glue code correctly). ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
James Almer (2018-04-19): > It would have not been backwards compatible in such scenario to load at > runtime an hypotetical 3.4.x lavf library with that change in an > application that was built against 3.3.x or older. Regardless of 0 being > defined as EOF or not in documentation, the behavior of one library > would have not been the same as the other, at least as i said above, > without the compat change you eventually committed. I did not remember the compat code was added afterwards. Anyway, it excludes packet callbacks on purpose. The thing is, we could NOT fix the initial bug (EOF caused by empty UDP packets, reported by an user). It just was not possible. Apart from leaving the bug, there were two options to fix this: - break empty packet for all applications and all packets protocols, or - break packet callbacks returning 0 for EOF. Since empty packets are legitimate, and even used in a few multimedia protocols, while callbacks returning 0 are using an undocumented and illogical feature, there was little doubt about which one to break. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:47:54 -0300 James Almer wrote: > On 4/19/2018 11:43 AM, wm4 wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:33:47 +0200 > > Nicolas George wrote: > > > >> James Almer (2018-04-19): > >>> Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as > >>> well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. > >> > >> Can you explain why you think that? > >> > >> When advising on these changes and reviewing patches, I was very careful > >> that they do not introduce API nor ABI changes. > > > > Your care is appreciated, but it still caused API changes and some > > rather critical bugs. > > > >> Apart from bugs in protocols that were not fixed immediately, the only > > > > 6 months later is "immediately"? Strange sense of time. > > He said "were not". Missed that, sorry. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/19/2018 11:43 AM, wm4 wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:33:47 +0200 > Nicolas George wrote: > >> James Almer (2018-04-19): >>> Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as >>> well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. >> >> Can you explain why you think that? >> >> When advising on these changes and reviewing patches, I was very careful >> that they do not introduce API nor ABI changes. > > Your care is appreciated, but it still caused API changes and some > rather critical bugs. > >> Apart from bugs in protocols that were not fixed immediately, the only > > 6 months later is "immediately"? Strange sense of time. He said "were not". > >> change visible for applications is if they register a custom callback >> for a packet protocol and yet decide to return 0 to indicate EOF. This >> was never a documented practice, is logically absurd (0 is a valid >> packet size) and inconsistent with similar practices (UDP socket do not >> return 0 for EOF). > > Applications could have relied on this behavior, though. Also not all > packet based I/O mechanisms need to be UDP or sockets. > > Yes, we all know EOF behavior isn't well documented, which means we > should cope with whatever behavior applications expect. > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/19/2018 11:33 AM, Nicolas George wrote: > James Almer (2018-04-19): >> Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as >> well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. > > Can you explain why you think that? > > When advising on these changes and reviewing patches, I was very careful > that they do not introduce API nor ABI changes. > > Apart from bugs in protocols that were not fixed immediately, the only > change visible for applications is if they register a custom callback > for a packet protocol and yet decide to return 0 to indicate EOF. It would have not been backwards compatible in such scenario to load at runtime an hypotetical 3.4.x lavf library with that change in an application that was built against 3.3.x or older. Regardless of 0 being defined as EOF or not in documentation, the behavior of one library would have not been the same as the other, at least as i said above, without the compat change you eventually committed. It being introduced after a major bump guarantees that any such custom callbacks will have to be adapted before they work again, so at least that's good. > This > was never a documented practice, is logically absurd (0 is a valid > packet size) and inconsistent with similar practices (UDP socket do not > return 0 for EOF). > > Regards, > > > > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:33:47 +0200 Nicolas George wrote: > James Almer (2018-04-19): > > Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as > > well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. > > Can you explain why you think that? > > When advising on these changes and reviewing patches, I was very careful > that they do not introduce API nor ABI changes. Your care is appreciated, but it still caused API changes and some rather critical bugs. > Apart from bugs in protocols that were not fixed immediately, the only 6 months later is "immediately"? Strange sense of time. > change visible for applications is if they register a custom callback > for a packet protocol and yet decide to return 0 to indicate EOF. This > was never a documented practice, is logically absurd (0 is a valid > packet size) and inconsistent with similar practices (UDP socket do not > return 0 for EOF). Applications could have relied on this behavior, though. Also not all packet based I/O mechanisms need to be UDP or sockets. Yes, we all know EOF behavior isn't well documented, which means we should cope with whatever behavior applications expect. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
James Almer (2018-04-19): > Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as > well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. Can you explain why you think that? When advising on these changes and reviewing patches, I was very careful that they do not introduce API nor ABI changes. Apart from bugs in protocols that were not fixed immediately, the only change visible for applications is if they register a custom callback for a packet protocol and yet decide to return 0 to indicate EOF. This was never a documented practice, is logically absurd (0 is a valid packet size) and inconsistent with similar practices (UDP socket do not return 0 for EOF). Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/19/2018 3:49 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56 AM, wm4 wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 >> Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer >>> wrote: On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer >> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major >>> release >>> >>> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >>> Any name suggestions ? >>> >>> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the >>> next weeks >> >> more time has passed than intended ... >> >> what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? >> I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most >> releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green >> longer ago >> do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the > next > 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me > just to > be sure if theres an issue) > > then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > release/4.0 > and then make the release finally > > delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > other. > > as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we > had > no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. release/4.0 branched next is the release in a few days. If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 >>> >>> I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the >>> tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that >>> module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure >>> breakage introduced in the last 2 days. >>> Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are >>> resolved by tomorrow afternoon. >> >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > avio EOF mess. >>> No, that need to wait 5.0 >>> >>> +1 >> >> At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for >> 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even >> more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. > > > The EOF change was already in 3.4 No, it was not. release/3.4 branch was cut on October 10, and the release made on October 15. Commit 858db4b01f was pushed on October 17, and never backported. Hell, it's not even mentioned in APIChanges and it seemingly didn't get a lavf version bump. All it got is a temporary stderr warning in a latter commit. How is that even acceptable? Had it been in 3.4 it would have mean a considerable ABI breakage as well, at least without the eventual backwards compat change. > , so not sure why that would be? > Lets just fix the issues and move on, there is no point in more arguing. > > - Hendrik ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:49:07 +0200 Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56 AM, wm4 wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > >> > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > Hi > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new > >> > >> > >> > > major > >> > >> > >> > > release > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release > >> > >> > >> > > in the > >> > >> > >> > > next weeks > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release > >> > >> > >> > ? > >> > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to > >> > >> > >> > most > >> > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > >> > >> > >> > longer ago > >> > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in > >> > >> > >> the > >> > >> > >> next > >> > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC > >> > >> > >> me > >> > >> > >> just to > >> > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > >> > >> > >> release/4.0 > >> > >> > >> and then make the release finally > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > >> > >> > >> other. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC > >> > >> > >> we > >> > >> > >> had > >> > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if > >> > >> > >> i > >> > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > release/4.0 branched > >> > >> > > next is the release in a few days. > >> > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > >> > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > >> > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > >> > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC > >> > >> > configure > >> > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > >> > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > >> > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > >> > >> > >> > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > >> > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > >> > > > >> > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > >> > > avio EOF mess. > >> > > >> > >> > No, that need to wait 5.0 > >> > >> +1 > > > > At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for > > 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even > > more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. > > > The EOF change was already in 3.4, so not sure why that would be? It was confirmed that these changes are not in 3.4, but some distro cherry picked it into their 3.4 (arch, I thought they have a no-patch policy). > Lets just fix the issues and move on, there is no point in more arguing. Well that will take time. Currently, we have the following issues: - UDP probably doesn't do much useful in most cases, since avio will retry more reads, and the 0 packet will essentially be skipped in a way that cannot be detected (it appears it will always go through retry_transfer_wrapper(), which seems to loop if the underlying read function returns 0, from what I can see). - On the other hand, callers with used a custom avio context in datagram mode will experience a public API breakage: if they return 0, it's not interpreted as EOF anymore. (A hack was added later to not to break API users, but only in the "stream" protocol case.) - The original change was shoddy enough that it instantly broke not only a bunch of public API users (fixed 10 days later), but also ma
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer >> wrote: >> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> >> > > Hi >> >> > > >> >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major >> >> > > release >> >> > > >> >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> >> > > Any name suggestions ? >> >> > > >> >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the >> >> > > next weeks >> >> > >> >> > more time has passed than intended ... >> >> > >> >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? >> >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most >> >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago >> >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? >> >> >> >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the next >> >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me just >> >> to >> >> be sure if theres an issue) >> >> >> >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to >> >> release/4.0 >> >> and then make the release finally >> >> >> >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. >> >> >> >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had >> >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i >> >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. >> > >> > >> > release/4.0 branched >> > next is the release in a few days. >> > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me >> > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 >> >> I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the >> tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that >> module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure >> breakage introduced in the last 2 days. >> Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are >> resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. Both of my changes have been applied, so nothing on my side anylonger. - Hendrik ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:49:21 +0200 Nicolas George wrote: > Hendrik Leppkes (2018-04-19): > > Lets just fix the issues and move on, there is no point in more arguing. > > Thanks (and also thanks to Michael). > > When something has been badly designed for a long time (and this > particular issue predates FFmpeg: the Unix socket API itself is bad, > FFmpeg only followed by default), it will inevitably have spread on many > places. Finding and fixing each of them will take time, but most of them > are small and easily fixed bugs. You can't fix the public API breakages this introduces. Strangely, you argued yourself that public API takes priority. Also I had to fix some of these bugs myself, so I'm not very appreciative of your last sentence. This thing has inconvenienced so many users. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
Hendrik Leppkes (2018-04-19): > Lets just fix the issues and move on, there is no point in more arguing. Thanks (and also thanks to Michael). When something has been badly designed for a long time (and this particular issue predates FFmpeg: the Unix socket API itself is bad, FFmpeg only followed by default), it will inevitably have spread on many places. Finding and fixing each of them will take time, but most of them are small and easily fixed bugs. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:49:07 +0200 Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56 AM, wm4 wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > >> > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > Hi > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new > >> > >> > >> > > major > >> > >> > >> > > release > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release > >> > >> > >> > > in the > >> > >> > >> > > next weeks > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release > >> > >> > >> > ? > >> > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to > >> > >> > >> > most > >> > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > >> > >> > >> > longer ago > >> > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in > >> > >> > >> the > >> > >> > >> next > >> > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC > >> > >> > >> me > >> > >> > >> just to > >> > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > >> > >> > >> release/4.0 > >> > >> > >> and then make the release finally > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > >> > >> > >> other. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC > >> > >> > >> we > >> > >> > >> had > >> > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if > >> > >> > >> i > >> > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > release/4.0 branched > >> > >> > > next is the release in a few days. > >> > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > >> > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > >> > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > >> > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC > >> > >> > configure > >> > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > >> > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > >> > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > >> > >> > >> > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > >> > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > >> > > > >> > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > >> > > avio EOF mess. > >> > > >> > >> > No, that need to wait 5.0 > >> > >> +1 > > > > At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for > > 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even > > more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. > > > The EOF change was already in 3.4, so not sure why that would be? That shouldn't have been released then. > Lets just fix the issues and move on, there is no point in more arguing. The problem is that more issues could show up. We're finding new issues related to EOF handling all the time. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 02:19:06 +0200 Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56:05AM +0200, wm4 wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > > > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > > > > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > Hi > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new > > > > >> > >> > > major > > > > >> > >> > > release > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > > > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release > > > > >> > >> > > in the > > > > >> > >> > > next weeks > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the > > > > >> > >> > release ? > > > > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to > > > > >> > >> > most > > > > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > > > > >> > >> > longer ago > > > > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master > > > > >> > >> in the > > > > >> > >> next > > > > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention > > > > >> > >> (CC me > > > > >> > >> just to > > > > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > > > > >> > >> release/4.0 > > > > >> > >> and then make the release finally > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > > > > >> > >> other. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC > > > > >> > >> we > > > > >> > >> had > > > > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me > > > > >> > >> if i > > > > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > release/4.0 branched > > > > >> > > next is the release in a few days. > > > > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > > > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > > > > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > > > > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC > > > > >> > configure > > > > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > > > > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > > > > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > > > >> > > > > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > > > > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > > > > > > > > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > > > > > avio EOF mess. > > > > > > > > > > > No, that need to wait 5.0 > > > > > > +1 > > > > At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for > > 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even > > more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. > > The API we have now, has been discussed, implemented and tested quite a > while ago. It was about half a year ago, and we're finding new problems all the time. Like schannel just a few days ago. If we release it as it is, application users will suffer from these bugs too. > That was the time for everyone to bring their oppinions in. I wasn't on the list at that time, you know why. > About API change, was 0 ever documented to mean EOF ? > If not, AVERROR_EOF was documented so iam not sure if the bug is not > in code returning 0 for EOF in cases where this was not documented. > > Thus rather a long standing bug that got fixed now instead of a new one > > I looked a bit at the documentation but i couldnt find a reference to > 0 means EOF, i looked at a old release to make sure iam not basing this > on a recent change > It is very possible iam missing something, in which case someone please > correct me and > > Ive not check
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56 AM, wm4 wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: >> > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 >> > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer >> > >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > > Hi >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major >> > >> > >> > > release >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in >> > >> > >> > > the >> > >> > >> > > next weeks >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? >> > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most >> > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green >> > >> > >> > longer ago >> > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in >> > >> > >> the >> > >> > >> next >> > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me >> > >> > >> just to >> > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to >> > >> > >> release/4.0 >> > >> > >> and then make the release finally >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or >> > >> > >> other. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we >> > >> > >> had >> > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i >> > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > release/4.0 branched >> > >> > > next is the release in a few days. >> > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me >> > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 >> > >> > >> > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the >> > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that >> > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure >> > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. >> > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are >> > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. >> > >> >> > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff >> > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. >> > > >> > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general >> > > avio EOF mess. >> > >> >> > No, that need to wait 5.0 >> >> +1 > > At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for > 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even > more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. The EOF change was already in 3.4, so not sure why that would be? Lets just fix the issues and move on, there is no point in more arguing. - Hendrik ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56:05AM +0200, wm4 wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > > > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > > > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > > Hi > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new > > > >> > >> > > major > > > >> > >> > > release > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in > > > >> > >> > > the > > > >> > >> > > next weeks > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > > > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > > > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > > > >> > >> > longer ago > > > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in > > > >> > >> the > > > >> > >> next > > > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC > > > >> > >> me > > > >> > >> just to > > > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > > > >> > >> release/4.0 > > > >> > >> and then make the release finally > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > > > >> > >> other. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we > > > >> > >> had > > > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > > > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > release/4.0 branched > > > >> > > next is the release in a few days. > > > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > > >> > > > > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > > > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > > > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC > > > >> > configure > > > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > > > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > > > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > > >> > > > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > > > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > > > > > > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > > > > avio EOF mess. > > > > > > > > No, that need to wait 5.0 > > > > +1 > > At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for > 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even > more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. The API we have now, has been discussed, implemented and tested quite a while ago. That was the time for everyone to bring their oppinions in. About API change, was 0 ever documented to mean EOF ? If not, AVERROR_EOF was documented so iam not sure if the bug is not in code returning 0 for EOF in cases where this was not documented. Thus rather a long standing bug that got fixed now instead of a new one I looked a bit at the documentation but i couldnt find a reference to 0 means EOF, i looked at a old release to make sure iam not basing this on a recent change It is very possible iam missing something, in which case someone please correct me and Ive not checked all docs but if i look at avio_read() /** * Read size bytes from AVIOContext into buf. * @return number of bytes read or AVERROR */ 0 is not EOF here in the API if we look at the url,h one: /** * Read data from the protocol. * If data is immediately available (even less than size), EOF is * reached or an error occurs (including EINTR), return immediately. * Otherwise: * In non-blocking mode, return AVERROR(EAGAIN) immediately. * In blocking mode, wait for data/EOF/error with a short timeout (0.1s), * and return AVERROR(EAGAIN) on timeout. * Checking interrupt_callback, looping on
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:40:21 +0200 Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer > > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > Hi > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major > > >> > >> > > release > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in > > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > > next weeks > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > > >> > >> > longer ago > > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the > > >> > >> next > > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me > > >> > >> just to > > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) > > >> > >> > > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > > >> > >> release/4.0 > > >> > >> and then make the release finally > > >> > >> > > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > > >> > >> other. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we > > >> > >> had > > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > release/4.0 branched > > >> > > next is the release in a few days. > > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > >> > > > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure > > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > >> > > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > > > > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > > > avio EOF mess. > > > > > No, that need to wait 5.0 > > +1 At this point it won't be possibly anymore, so it has to happen for 4.0. Also why would we release something that is likely to break even more API users? Wouldn't you agree that bugs need to be fixed. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:09PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > >> > wrote: > >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > Hi > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major > >> > >> > > release > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the > >> > >> > > next weeks > >> > >> > > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > >> > >> > > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green > >> > >> > longer ago > >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > >> > >> > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the > >> > >> next > >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me > >> > >> just to > >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) > >> > >> > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > >> > >> release/4.0 > >> > >> and then make the release finally > >> > >> > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or > >> > >> other. > >> > >> > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we > >> > >> had > >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > release/4.0 branched > >> > > next is the release in a few days. > >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > >> > > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure > >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > >> > >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > > avio EOF mess. > > No, that need to wait 5.0 +1 [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Does the universe only have a finite lifespan? No, its going to go on forever, its just that you wont like living in it. -- Hiranya Peiri signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/18/18, wm4 wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer >> > wrote: >> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major >> > >> > > release >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> > >> > > Any name suggestions ? >> > >> > > >> > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the >> > >> > > next weeks >> > >> > >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... >> > >> > >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? >> > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most >> > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green >> > >> > longer ago >> > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? >> > >> >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the >> > >> next >> > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me >> > >> just to >> > >> be sure if theres an issue) >> > >> >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to >> > >> release/4.0 >> > >> and then make the release finally >> > >> >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or >> > >> other. >> > >> >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we >> > >> had >> > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i >> > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. >> > > >> > > >> > > release/4.0 branched >> > > next is the release in a few days. >> > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me >> > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 >> > >> > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the >> > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that >> > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure >> > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. >> > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are >> > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. >> >> well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff >> so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. > > Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general > avio EOF mess. No, that need to wait 5.0 ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:15:47 +0200 Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> > > Hi > > >> > > > > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major > > >> > > release > > >> > > > > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > > >> > > > > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the > > >> > > next weeks > > >> > > > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > > >> > > > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer > > >> > ago > > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > >> > > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the next > > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me just > > >> to > > >> be sure if theres an issue) > > >> > > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to > > >> release/4.0 > > >> and then make the release finally > > >> > > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. > > >> > > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had > > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > > > > > > > > release/4.0 branched > > > next is the release in a few days. > > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > > > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure > > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. > > well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff > so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. Please also wait with the release until we've sorted out the general avio EOF mess. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > > Hi > >> > > > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > >> > > > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> > > Any name suggestions ? > >> > > > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next > >> > > weeks > >> > > >> > more time has passed than intended ... > >> > > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago > >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > >> > >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the next > >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me just to > >> be sure if theres an issue) > >> > >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to release/4.0 > >> and then make the release finally > >> > >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. > >> > >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had > >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > > > > > release/4.0 branched > > next is the release in a few days. > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the > tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that > module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure > breakage introduced in the last 2 days. > Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are > resolved by tomorrow afternoon. well i had a bad headache today and iam a bit behind now with stuff so i likely wont be ready before tomorrow evening either. ... [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > > Hi >> > > >> > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release >> > > >> > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> > > Any name suggestions ? >> > > >> > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next >> > > weeks >> > >> > more time has passed than intended ... >> > >> > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? >> > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most >> > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago >> > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? >> >> ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the next >> 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me just to >> be sure if theres an issue) >> >> then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to release/4.0 >> and then make the release finally >> >> delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. >> >> as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had >> no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i >> miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. > > > release/4.0 branched > next is the release in a few days. > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 I have two more fixes that should really go in 4.0, one is the tls_schannel fix that I plan to push soon (I'm the author of that module, so unless someone says otherwise soon), and the MSVC configure breakage introduced in the last 2 days. Not sure when you planned to tag, but hopefully both of those are resolved by tomorrow afternoon. - Hendrik ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:14:55PM +0100, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote: > On 16 April 2018 at 12:40, Timo Teras wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:24:48 +0200 > > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > release/4.0 branched > > > next is the release in a few days. > > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > > > I was hoping to get my patches in for the release: > > > > - ffprobe: report unavailable SAR correctly in stream info > > * lgtm from Rotislav > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228141.html > > > > - avformat/movenc: support writing iTunes cover image > > * Rostislav has reviewed, and wanted it for 4.0 too > > * latest patched updated per his review comments at: > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228264.html > > > > - ffprobe: report DAR even if SAR is undefined > > * happy to do alternate fix if the patch solution not acceptable > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228284.html > > > > If it's too late that's understandable, but hopefully these could get > > backported to 4.0 branch too. > > > > Thanks for considering, > > Timo > > ___ > > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > > > I too would like for these patches to make it into the release. well, then please review/apply/backport them thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB If a bugfix only changes things apparently unrelated to the bug with no further explanation, that is a good sign that the bugfix is wrong. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 16 April 2018 at 12:40, Timo Teras wrote: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:24:48 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > release/4.0 branched > > next is the release in a few days. > > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 > > I was hoping to get my patches in for the release: > > - ffprobe: report unavailable SAR correctly in stream info > * lgtm from Rotislav > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228141.html > > - avformat/movenc: support writing iTunes cover image > * Rostislav has reviewed, and wanted it for 4.0 too > * latest patched updated per his review comments at: > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228264.html > > - ffprobe: report DAR even if SAR is undefined > * happy to do alternate fix if the patch solution not acceptable > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228284.html > > If it's too late that's understandable, but hopefully these could get > backported to 4.0 branch too. > > Thanks for considering, > Timo > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > I too would like for these patches to make it into the release. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:24:48 +0200 Michael Niedermayer wrote: > release/4.0 branched > next is the release in a few days. > If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me > also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 I was hoping to get my patches in for the release: - ffprobe: report unavailable SAR correctly in stream info * lgtm from Rotislav https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228141.html - avformat/movenc: support writing iTunes cover image * Rostislav has reviewed, and wanted it for 4.0 too * latest patched updated per his review comments at: https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228264.html - ffprobe: report DAR even if SAR is undefined * happy to do alternate fix if the patch solution not acceptable https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-April/228284.html If it's too late that's understandable, but hopefully these could get backported to 4.0 branch too. Thanks for considering, Timo ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:04:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > > > > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > > Any name suggestions ? > > > > > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next > > > weeks > > > > more time has passed than intended ... > > > > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago > > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the next > 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me just to > be sure if theres an issue) > > then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to release/4.0 > and then make the release finally > > delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. > > as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had > no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i > miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. release/4.0 branched next is the release in a few days. If theres something i should wait for please say so and CC me also please backport all bugfixes to 4.0 If someone wants to write more fancy release notes or other things please do so before the release is made Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. -- Voltaire signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:53:08AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > Hi > > > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > Any name suggestions ? > > > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks > > more time has passed than intended ... > > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? ok, so, my plan is to create a release/4.0 branch from master in the next 24-48 hours unless theres some issue brought to my attention (CC me just to be sure if theres an issue) then wait 2 days or so and backport any newly found bugfixes to release/4.0 and then make the release finally delays at any point are possible due to issues, lack of time or other. as name i think kierans suggestion of Wu would make sense. IIRC we had no name suggested by more than 1 developer. Please correct me if i miscounted i did only briefly re-check the mails in the thread. Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/13/2018 10:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:33:32AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 4/13/2018 9:59 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17:51PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>
>
>> and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
>
> you want me to apply it ?
> or i misunderstand ?
You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
whichever you prefer, yes.
>>>
>>> do you have a link to your patch ?
>>
>> I gave you https://pastebin.com/qt6wBHG8 on IRC the other day to test,
>> and you also tried a version using foo += bar instead of bar = 0. You
>> mentioned both seemed to work, so as i said just push whichever you
>> think is better, or just tell me which one to push if you're busy.
>
> iam always busy ;)
> push what you prefer, push yours if you still cant decide
>
> thanks!
Pushed yours.
I don't think we need to backport this to release/3.4 seeing the file
using stdatomic.h you reported was failing (h264_slice.c) was ported to
it only a month or so ago, but guess we'll know once the relevant fate
client runs. I can see release/3.3 at least works.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:33:32AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/13/2018 9:59 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17:51PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
> >>>
> >>> you want me to apply it ?
> >>> or i misunderstand ?
> >>
> >> You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
> >> whichever you prefer, yes.
> >
> > do you have a link to your patch ?
>
> I gave you https://pastebin.com/qt6wBHG8 on IRC the other day to test,
> and you also tried a version using foo += bar instead of bar = 0. You
> mentioned both seemed to work, so as i said just push whichever you
> think is better, or just tell me which one to push if you're busy.
iam always busy ;)
push what you prefer, push yours if you still cant decide
thanks!
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
>
> The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect
> and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float
> values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget
> about it, but no idea if there's a better solution.
> >>>
> >>> of course removing the test is the easy solution.
> >>> there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just
> >>> one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests
> >>>
> >>> The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a
> >>> non bitexact float decoder.
> >>> has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ?
> >>
> >> Do we have a relatively quiet sample using a bitexact codec like this
> >> amrwb one? Or we could convert it to flac and upload it instead.
> >
> > random pick based on existing test:
> > ffprobe -of compact=p=0 -show_entries frame=pkt_pts:frame_tags -bitexact -f
> > lavfi amovie=fate-suite/lossless-audio/inside.tta,silencedetect=n=-34dB:d=.3
>
> LGTM, it also generates a shorter output. Thanks.
ok will test what i can locally easiyl before pushing this
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Does the universe only have a finite lifespan? No, its going to go on
forever, its just that you wont like living in it. -- Hiranya Peiri
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/13/2018 9:59 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17:51PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>
>>>
and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
>>>
>>> you want me to apply it ?
>>> or i misunderstand ?
>>
>> You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
>> whichever you prefer, yes.
>
> do you have a link to your patch ?
I gave you https://pastebin.com/qt6wBHG8 on IRC the other day to test,
and you also tried a version using foo += bar instead of bar = 0. You
mentioned both seemed to work, so as i said just push whichever you
think is better, or just tell me which one to push if you're busy.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect
and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float
values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget
about it, but no idea if there's a better solution.
>>>
>>> of course removing the test is the easy solution.
>>> there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just
>>> one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests
>>>
>>> The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a
>>> non bitexact float decoder.
>>> has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ?
>>
>> Do we have a relatively quiet sample using a bitexact codec like this
>> amrwb one? Or we could convert it to flac and upload it instead.
>
> random pick based on existing test:
> ffprobe -of compact=p=0 -show_entries frame=pkt_pts:frame_tags -bitexact -f
> lavfi amovie=fate-suite/lossless-audio/inside.tta,silencedetect=n=-34dB:d=.3
LGTM, it also generates a shorter output. Thanks.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17:51PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> >
> >
> >> and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
> >
> > you want me to apply it ?
> > or i misunderstand ?
>
> You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
> whichever you prefer, yes.
do you have a link to your patch ?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect
> >> and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float
> >> values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget
> >> about it, but no idea if there's a better solution.
> >
> > of course removing the test is the easy solution.
> > there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just
> > one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests
> >
> > The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a
> > non bitexact float decoder.
> > has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ?
>
> Do we have a relatively quiet sample using a bitexact codec like this
> amrwb one? Or we could convert it to flac and upload it instead.
random pick based on existing test:
ffprobe -of compact=p=0 -show_entries frame=pkt_pts:frame_tags -bitexact -f
lavfi amovie=fate-suite/lossless-audio/inside.tta,silencedetect=n=-34dB:d=.3
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Take away the freedom of one citizen and you will be jailed, take away
the freedom of all citizens and you will be congratulated by your peers
in Parliament.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17:51PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:59:25PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > >> On 4/12/2018 7:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > Any name suggestions ? > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next > weeks > >>> > >>> more time has passed than intended ... > >>> > >>> what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > >>> I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > >>> releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago > >>> do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >> > >> I fixed two targets the other day, and another has the patch pending in > >> the ml (OpenBSD). > > > >> Then there are your FreeBSD clients that you need to > >> switch to yasm, > > > > I can do that, it doesnt feel right though. configure should not pick > > a nasm that then fails later. > > Do you have a suggestion of what kind of configure check could trigger > this failure? As is, all the current checks are succeeding. It's only > failing once it tries to compile the first asm file in the tree. It seems that freebsd version isnt supported anymore so ive switched to yasm, lets see what goes wrong with that ;) Ill probably replace this box by a new and fresh freebsd install as it seems there are enough issues to justify this (low diskspace, very odd nasm issue, unsupported version) but ATM i have too much on my todo thats more important thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The real ebay dictionary, page 2 "100% positive feedback" - "All either got their money back or didnt complain" "Best seller ever, very honest" - "Seller refunded buyer after failed scam" signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:59 AM, James Almer wrote: > a bunch of msvc miscompilation failures that Microsoft will not fix. A bunch of those are apparently fixed in an upcoming compiler update, Martin reported those (for VS2017) What remains we'll have to see afterwards, its no fun to try to find the reason for a miscompilation when it might be all a similar cause in the optimizer thats already fixed. - Hendrik ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/12/2018 10:17 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:59:25PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2018 7:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
>
> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release
>
> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ?
> Any name suggestions ?
>
> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next
> weeks
more time has passed than intended ...
what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ?
I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most
releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago
do people want these to be fixed before the release ?
Thanks
>>>
>>> I fixed two targets the other day, and another has the patch pending in
>>> the ml (OpenBSD).
>>
>>> Then there are your FreeBSD clients that you need to
>>> switch to yasm,
>>
>> I can do that, it doesnt feel right though. configure should not pick
>> a nasm that then fails later.
>
> Do you have a suggestion of what kind of configure check could trigger
> this failure? As is, all the current checks are succeeding. It's only
> failing once it tries to compile the first asm file in the tree.
>
>>
>>
>>> and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
>>
>> you want me to apply it ?
>> or i misunderstand ?
>
> You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
> whichever you prefer, yes.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect
>>> and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float
>>> values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget
>>> about it, but no idea if there's a better solution.
>>
>> of course removing the test is the easy solution.
>> there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just
>> one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests
>>
>> The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a
>> non bitexact float decoder.
>> has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ?
>
> Do we have a relatively quiet sample using a bitexact codec like this
> amrwb one? Or we could convert it to flac and upload it instead.
>
>>
>> Thanks
In any case, save for the c11 configure check fix, none of these issues
should IMO block the release seeing it was already delayed enough. They
are either strict float comparisons in fate (Where the fix is using a
laxer comparison value), or external issues like broken assemblers and
binutils tools.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:59:25PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 4/12/2018 7:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release
Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ?
Any name suggestions ?
If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next
weeks
>>>
>>> more time has passed than intended ...
>>>
>>> what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ?
>>> I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most
>>> releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago
>>> do people want these to be fixed before the release ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> I fixed two targets the other day, and another has the patch pending in
>> the ml (OpenBSD).
>
>> Then there are your FreeBSD clients that you need to
>> switch to yasm,
>
> I can do that, it doesnt feel right though. configure should not pick
> a nasm that then fails later.
Do you have a suggestion of what kind of configure check could trigger
this failure? As is, all the current checks are succeeding. It's only
failing once it tries to compile the first asm file in the tree.
>
>
>> and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
>
> you want me to apply it ?
> or i misunderstand ?
You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
whichever you prefer, yes.
>
>
>>
>> The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect
>> and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float
>> values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget
>> about it, but no idea if there's a better solution.
>
> of course removing the test is the easy solution.
> there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just
> one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests
>
> The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a
> non bitexact float decoder.
> has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ?
Do we have a relatively quiet sample using a bitexact codec like this
amrwb one? Or we could convert it to flac and upload it instead.
>
> Thanks
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:59:25PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 4/12/2018 7:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > >> > >> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> Any name suggestions ? > >> > >> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next > >> weeks > > > > more time has passed than intended ... > > > > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago > > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > > > Thanks > > I fixed two targets the other day, and another has the patch pending in > the ml (OpenBSD). > Then there are your FreeBSD clients that you need to > switch to yasm, I can do that, it doesnt feel right though. configure should not pick a nasm that then fails later. > and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure. you want me to apply it ? or i misunderstand ? > > The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect > and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float > values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget > about it, but no idea if there's a better solution. of course removing the test is the easy solution. there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a non bitexact float decoder. has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ? Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The real ebay dictionary, page 1 "Used only once"- "Some unspecified defect prevented a second use" "In good condition" - "Can be repaird by experienced expert" "As is" - "You wouldnt want it even if you were payed for it, if you knew ..." signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 4/12/2018 7:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> Hi >> >> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release >> >> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> Any name suggestions ? >> >> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks > > more time has passed than intended ... > > what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? > I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most > releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago > do people want these to be fixed before the release ? > > Thanks I fixed two targets the other day, and another has the patch pending in the ml (OpenBSD). Then there are your FreeBSD clients that you need to switch to yasm, and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure. The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget about it, but no idea if there's a better solution. The checkasm failure can be solved by changing the value passed as epsilon to float_near_abs_eps_array(), but i don't know which one would be best without making it too lax and end up having it succeed even when it's getting bad results. The rest of the failures are old, like random_seed on some obscure systems and a bunch of msvc miscompilation failures that Microsoft will not fix. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > Any name suggestions ? > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks more time has passed than intended ... what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ? I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago do people want these to be fixed before the release ? Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. -- Aristotle signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
Hi, On 19.02.2018 02:50, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > Any name suggestions ? > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks I would like to see the Android camera support being integrated in our next release. Best regards, Thomas. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
Reto Kromer wrote: >I suggest as well to move the 2.8 branch from the Releases to >the Old Releases. I just noticed that the day before yesterday 2.8.14 has been released, therefore please ignore my suggestion. Thank you! ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Michael Niedermayer wrote: Hi Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? 4.0 Any name suggestions ? If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks Removal of the nvenc headers was also planned, I suggest we go through with it before the release. Regards, Marton ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
Michael Niedermayer wrote: >Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? I would prefer 4.0 for the reasons already mentioned by others. I suggest as well to move the 2.8 branch from the Releases to the Old Releases. >Any name suggestions ? >I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to >the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire Voltaire (some Voltaire is useful those days). Best regards, Reto ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 2/19/2018 1:31 PM, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 at 16:06 James Almer wrote: > >> On 2/19/2018 5:54 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>> On 2/19/18, James Almer wrote: On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP >>> >>> ffprobe is removed? I'm making the fork. >> >> Err, no, i meant to say ffserver. My bad. >> >>> >>> support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct message to downstream users. > Any name suggestions ? >> >> How about Mellin? >> > > What about Chien-Shiung Wu, who was denied the Nobel Prize for her work on > Parity violation. > > Kieran Her surname is Wu, which is kinda short, but fine by me if that's preferred. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 at 16:06 James Almer wrote: > On 2/19/2018 5:54 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > On 2/19/18, James Almer wrote: > >> On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > >>> > >>> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > >> > >> Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP > > > > ffprobe is removed? I'm making the fork. > > Err, no, i meant to say ffserver. My bad. > > > > > > >> support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API > >> introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct > >> message to downstream users. > >> > >>> Any name suggestions ? > > How about Mellin? > What about Chien-Shiung Wu, who was denied the Nobel Prize for her work on Parity violation. Kieran ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 2/19/2018 5:54 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 2/19/18, James Almer wrote: >> On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release >>> >>> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> >> Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP > > ffprobe is removed? I'm making the fork. Err, no, i meant to say ffserver. My bad. > > >> support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API >> introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct >> message to downstream users. >> >>> Any name suggestions ? How about Mellin? >>> >>> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next >>> weeks >> >> The iterate() API for lavfi should be confirmed working and committed >> before this release is made, as the rest are already in. But aside from >> that i think the path is clear. >> >>> >>> thx >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >>> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >>> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >>> >> >> ___ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 2/19/18, wm4 wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:54:57 +0100 > Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> On 2/19/18, James Almer wrote: >> > On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release >> >> >> >> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? >> > >> > Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP >> >> ffprobe is removed? I'm making the fork. > > He means ffserver of course. Do you still want to work? fork or work? > >> >> >> > support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API >> > introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct >> > message to downstream users. >> > >> >> Any name suggestions ? > > I suggest "Green-yellow striped bikeshed". Better name of somebody famous instead? ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:54:57 +0100 Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 2/19/18, James Almer wrote: > > On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > >> > >> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > > > Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP > > ffprobe is removed? I'm making the fork. He means ffserver of course. Do you still want to work? > > > > support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API > > introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct > > message to downstream users. > > > >> Any name suggestions ? I suggest "Green-yellow striped bikeshed". ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 2/19/18, James Almer wrote: > On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> Hi >> >> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release >> >> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? > > Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP ffprobe is removed? I'm making the fork. > support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API > introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct > message to downstream users. > >> Any name suggestions ? >> >> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next >> weeks > > The iterate() API for lavfi should be confirmed working and committed > before this release is made, as the rest are already in. But aside from > that i think the path is clear. > >> >> thx >> >> >> >> ___ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> > > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
On 2/18/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release > > Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ? Definitely 4.0. With the major bump, the removal of ffprobe and WinXP support, catching up with the merge queue, plus a bunch of new API introductions, using 3.5 for this release doesn't transmits the correct message to downstream users. > Any name suggestions ? > > If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks The iterate() API for lavfi should be confirmed working and committed before this release is made, as the rest are already in. But aside from that i think the path is clear. > > thx > > > > ___ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
