[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] add alloc_put_byte function

[Baptiste Coudurier]

Reimar Doeffinger wrote:
> Hello,
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:00:54PM +0100, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> This change is only to keep functions names consistent within libavformat.
> 
> And how does letting inconsistent function names "ripe" help anyone? (though
> maybe the issue here is that it already is quite "ripe").
> I do not consider one a lot more consistent than the other, but I happily
> go with what others say.
> 
>> Now:
>>
>> 1) You applied it without considering my opinion just because you didn't
>> want to delay another patch. this is clearly NOT acceptable.
> 
> I certainly did consider it. I explained why I chose the name, since I did
> not get a reply either way I went ahead with what I had. I admit that only
> just over 24 hours was not a long time to wait for a reply though, sorry.
> I just did not really want to wait to commit until mid-January and
> half-forgetting about the patch nor did I want to commit something right
> on the day before going on holidays.
> 

The problem I have here, is that I said on 12/20/2007 11:58 PM +0100:
"I'd prefer something like av_alloc_byteio_context.", and clearly said
that I found current name odd.

You answered on 12/21/2007 09:49 AM +0100:
"I'll go with anything you agree", and you nevertheless applied the old
patch.

Honestly I just think this is weird, because I had already proposed
another name.

>> 2) You did extend API without bumping minor.
> 
> Which was intentional, I would have fixed that shortly later if there
> was not that pending naming issue.
> I did not expect it to stay like that for over a month (unfortunately
> I just forgot about this).

Well, yes, due to vacation time it stood like that and honestly I did
not want to fight about it either.

So I think version should be bump in any case, it is even better to wait
a bit before extending API, to let people settle and propose, discuss
and agree.

>> 3) Aurel emitted doubts about API breaking, and I won't ignore other's
>> opinions just because I want the change.
> 
> It seems he did not have all the details though. Though in the mean time
> the version number was changed, so the argument does not hold.
> 
>> Now I consider, like Aurel, that this change will actually break API, so
>> Im reconsidering the change, because it is only justified for the sake
>> of naming consistency and will cause trouble for people already using it.
> 
> So how about #ifdef ing it for a major version number change?
> If you think the naming is inconsistent, just leaving it as it is, is no good
> either. Though I do not know if you consider it that inconsistent.
> 

Im fine with ifdef or deprecated attribute, but I don't want to break
API again (and do not want to bump major and consequently soname).

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
SMARTJOG S.A.                                    http://www.smartjog.com
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
Phone: +33 1 49966312