[Ffmpeg-cvslog] CVS: ffmpeg/libavcodec avcodec.h, 1.435, 1.436 utils.c, 1.167, 1.168 mpegvideo.c, 1.499, 1.500

Alexander Strasser eclipse7
Mon Dec 26 21:57:36 CET 2005


Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 10:34:45AM +0100, Alexander Strasser wrote:
> [...]
> >   As I asked before, I am not clear about the second part
> > adding a new function to the API should be API compatible,
> > and ABI compatible too, so changing the second component is
> > meant to be ABI compatible?
> yes unless theres some issue iam not aware of ...

  Ok. This means second and third component are the same
regarding to API and ABI compatibility, so they only
have the informational difference that the second number
means feature addition while the third means bug fix, right?

  Then saying
  ``Incrementing the second component means binary compatible addition
    (e.g. addition of a function).''

  instead of

  ``Incrementing the second component means backward compatible change
    (e.g. addition of a function).''

  seems clearer to me as a backward compatible change could also be
  understood as a only API compatible one.

  Also the second component could/should/must be changed
if I add a new API function, Coder/Decoder/Muxer/Demuxer,
a new AVOption? The question is if it should be a strict
or loose policy, one also might question what it is worth
having a loose version policy.
  I think my documentation improves the current situation
a little. But it might be worth it to start a new discussion
on ffmpeg-devel and add the conclusion into a separate section
of the developer documentation and refer to that section from
the CVS Policy section.

  Or did i understand something fundamentally wrong now?

> >   If so i should mention that explicitly for clarity.
> > 
> >   Also my previous argumentation was flawed because of
> > me not taking into account that AVOption solves the
> > problems with the many ABI incompatible changes.
> > 
> >   Also could it be that your answer to that part of my
> > mail vanished somehow? 
> no
> > You normally write [...] if you
> > skip parts.
> hmm, if theres no [...] on your side then it vanished
> [...]

  Oh, I just saw it was in the original mail. I must have
accidently deleted it while writing the answer. Sorry for
the trouble.

  Alex (beastd)

More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list