[FFmpeg-devel] "avconv"

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Saturday 2011-08-13 23:46:39 +0200, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 09:26:57AM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 03:27:17AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > the last merge from qatar brought us a cloned ffmpeg.c called by them
> > > avconv.
> > > 
> > 
> > On libav, ffmpeg is a deprecated avconv. The rename allows them to break
> > command line compatibility (simplification of -map, drop
> > -new{audio,video}, etc.). A warning is added in ffmpeg.c stating it is
> > deprecated.
> > 
> > > should we rename that to ffmpeg2 or ffmpeg0, ffmpeg.org or leave it
> > > ?
> > > 
> > 
> > I propose to rename ffmpeg.c to ffmpeg0.c (providing ffmpeg0), and
> > avconv.c to ffmpeg.c (providing ffmpeg).  ffmpeg0.c should warn about the
> > compatibility break (let's keep the original message substituting the
> > binary names).
> > 
> > When libav will decide to drop ffmpeg.c, we'll just drop ffmpeg0.c
> > 
> > The new command line API is interesting and I think ffmpeg should benefit
> > it.
> 

> The thing iam sure about is that whichever of the 2 tools will be
> better i will rename to ffmpeg.
> But i cant say ATM which of the 2 that will be. It depends on many
> factors, only time can tell.

Whatever it will be the better, having two distinct tools with the
same name will be highly confusing - consider people is still using
the 0.5 release, thus I prefer to choose a completely different name
for the new tool. Also "ffmpeg" was never a good choice for the FFmpeg
converter, having a tool named like the whole project is confusing,
*and* the name "ffmpeg" is not exactly indicative of what the tool is
/ does.

> The question is, what to call them until we know which of the 2 that
> will be.

As I already noted, "ffplay", "ffprobe", ..., => "ffconvert" seems the
obvious choice here.
-- 
FFmpeg = Fundamentalist Fostering Mysterious Peaceless Epic Guru