Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0

2018-04-20 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-19 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-19 Thread Nicolas George
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-19 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-19 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-19 Thread Nicolas George
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

2018-04-19 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0

2018-04-19 Thread Hendrik Leppkes
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-19 Thread Nicolas George
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-19 Thread wm4
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 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0

2018-04-19 Thread Hendrik Leppkes
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

2018-04-18 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0

2018-04-18 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-18 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-18 Thread Paul B Mahol
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

2018-04-18 Thread wm4
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

2018-04-18 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-18 Thread Hendrik Leppkes
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

2018-04-16 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-16 Thread Rostislav Pehlivanov
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

2018-04-16 Thread Timo Teras
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

2018-04-16 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-14 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-13 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-13 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-13 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-13 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-13 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-13 Thread Hendrik Leppkes
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

2018-04-12 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-12 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-12 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-04-12 Thread James Almer
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

2018-04-12 Thread Michael Niedermayer
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

2018-02-26 Thread Thomas Volkert
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

2018-02-20 Thread Reto Kromer
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

2018-02-19 Thread Marton Balint


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

2018-02-19 Thread Reto Kromer
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

2018-02-19 Thread James Almer
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

2018-02-19 Thread Kieran Kunhya
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

2018-02-19 Thread James Almer
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

2018-02-19 Thread Paul B Mahol
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

2018-02-19 Thread wm4
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

2018-02-19 Thread Paul B Mahol
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

2018-02-18 Thread James Almer
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