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

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> James Almer
> Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2021 03:34
> To: ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Why does this break FATE?
> 
> 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.

Might be true, but it doesn't seem right to me that this is happening
and submitting a patch for demonstration seemed to be an adequate 
measure to present the issue.

> Since we haven't had a release since the last major bump, we can
> still
> apply ABI (not API) breaking changes, if needed.

Based on the fact that requirements are strict about MINOR bumps and 
mandating them to be included in the very commit that is requiring 
the bump, I didn't expect that there's a different strategy for
MAJOR bumps.

Anyway - will use minor bumps, then.

Thanks,
softworkz