[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Why does this break FATE?

[James Almer]

On 9/8/2021 10:29 PM, Soft Works wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
>> James Almer
>> Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2021 03:18
>> To: ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Why does this break FATE?
>>
>> On 9/8/2021 10:14 PM, Soft Works wrote:
>>> Test seek-lavf-asf failed. Look at tests/data/fate/seek-lavf-
>> asf.err for details.
>>> make: *** [/build/ffmpeg-git/tests/Makefile:256: fate-seek-lavf-
>> asf] Error 139
>>>
>>> $ cat tests/data/fate/seek-lavf-asf.err
>>> /build/ffmpeg-git/tests/fate-run.sh: line 78: 21786 Segmentation
>> fault      $target_exec $target_path/"$@"
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the same on both Windows/MSYS2 and Linux. Let's see how
>> patchwork results will be...
>>
>> Please, don't send patches just to have patchwork run FATE for you.
>> It
>> litters the mailing list. Do it locally.
> 
> As written above I _did_ run it locally on both Linux and Windows/MSYS.

That was more than enough to know that the failure you saw was not a fluke.

> 
>>> ---
>>>    libavcodec/version.h | 6 +++---
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/version.h b/libavcodec/version.h
>>> index 83db2b242a..d162607f4b 100644
>>> --- a/libavcodec/version.h
>>> +++ b/libavcodec/version.h
>>> @@ -27,9 +27,9 @@
>>>
>>>    #include "libavutil/version.h"
>>>
>>> -#define LIBAVCODEC_VERSION_MAJOR  59
>>> -#define LIBAVCODEC_VERSION_MINOR   7
>>> -#define LIBAVCODEC_VERSION_MICRO 102
>>> +#define LIBAVCODEC_VERSION_MAJOR  60
>>
>> Bumping major version of any library without the required
>> considerations
>> will more likely than not break many tests and scenarios.
>> If you just want to bump version for a new addition or change, bump
>> minor and/or micro.
> 
> The patch I'm working on requires a major version bump, that's why
> I had it included in the commit where it belongs to.

Since we haven't had a release since the last major bump, we can still 
apply ABI (not API) breaking changes, if needed. So send your patch for 
consideration, without bumping major.

> 
> Needless to say that it was the very last thing I suspected for
> causing this.
> 
> So how can this be that a version change without anything else
> can cause a test to fail?`
> 
> 
> softworkz
> 
> PS: Patchwork shows the same error
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
>