Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/30/2016 5:28 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:44:55PM -0300, James Almer wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 9:47 PM, James Almer wrote: >>> On 6/29/2016 9:16 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: Hendrik Leppkes gmail.com> writes: > Plenty previous releases moved fields

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:44:55PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 6/29/2016 9:47 PM, James Almer wrote: > > On 6/29/2016 9:16 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> Hendrik Leppkes gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> Plenty previous releases moved fields that were marked as "no direct > >>> access", usually

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/29/2016 9:47 PM, James Almer wrote: > On 6/29/2016 9:16 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> Hendrik Leppkes gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Plenty previous releases moved fields that were marked as "no direct >>> access", usually because libav added a new field above the >>> ffmpeg-exclusive ones (like

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/29/2016 9:16 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Hendrik Leppkes gmail.com> writes: > >> Plenty previous releases moved fields that were marked as "no direct >> access", usually because libav added a new field above the >> ffmpeg-exclusive ones (like AVFrame.channels, which is a common >>

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

Hendrik Leppkes gmail.com> writes: > Plenty previous releases moved fields that were marked as "no direct > access", usually because libav added a new field above the > ffmpeg-exclusive ones (like AVFrame.channels, which is a common > candidate), and we didn't do such a song and dance to

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 01:25:59AM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Timo Rothenpieler > wrote: > >>> While it's true that all fields after it are not public API/ABI, a lot > >>> of software seems to misuse it, so to avoid too much trouble

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote: >>> While it's true that all fields after it are not public API/ABI, a lot >>> of software seems to misuse it, so to avoid too much trouble for now, >>> this should be fixed. >> >> How do you expect library users to

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

>> During an actual major bump, where such breakage is expected. >> A lot of stuff gets it wrong, and it is indeed confusing, so putting all >> blame on API users seems wrong to me. Specially as this issue will block >> distributions from adapting 3.1. > > How? Just like they are updating to 3.1,

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/29/2016 7:50 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote: >>> While it's true that all fields after it are not public API/ABI, a lot >>> of software seems to misuse it, so to avoid too much trouble for now, >>> this should be fixed. >> >> How do you expect library users to start using the API correctly if

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

>> While it's true that all fields after it are not public API/ABI, a lot >> of software seems to misuse it, so to avoid too much trouble for now, >> this should be fixed. > > How do you expect library users to start using the API correctly if every > time they do something wrong we are the ones

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/29/2016 7:39 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote: > On 6/29/2016 10:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> This is a similar ABI fix to 1eb43af1a0e542ad83dcbf327197785d815fc42d > > +1 for this. > > While it's true that all fields after it are not public API/ABI, a lot > of software seems to misuse

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/29/2016 10:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > This is a similar ABI fix to 1eb43af1a0e542ad83dcbf327197785d815fc42d +1 for this. While it's true that all fields after it are not public API/ABI, a lot of software seems to misuse it, so to avoid too much trouble for now, this should be

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On 6/29/2016 5:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > This is a similar ABI fix to 1eb43af1a0e542ad83dcbf327197785d815fc42d > --- > libavutil/frame.h | 11 +-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/libavutil/frame.h b/libavutil/frame.h > index 44adec4..2b5c332

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avutil/frame: Move new field to the end of AVFrame

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > This is a similar ABI fix to 1eb43af1a0e542ad83dcbf327197785d815fc42d All fields below this are documented as no direct access, and this struct layout is in a release already. - Hendrik