[x265] Poor Development Practices

[Steve Borho]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Derek Buitenhuis <
derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/18/2014 6:00 PM, Steve Borho wrote:
> > I disagree; any program that used the old API can use the new one
> without any change because before that commit internal and input bit depth
> were always the same.  Both before and after that commit that particular
> field has only served to validate that the user was aware of whether the
> library was compiled for 16bpp or not.
>
> If it really is this, then the API was documented wrong, and it does
> some weird things.
>

It was documented wrongly; I've fixed that in recent commits.

e.g. x265_picture_init() copies it over into the x265_picture.bitDepth
> field,
> which sure does look like *input* depth...
>

It is the default input depth. The user is responsible for making
pic.bitDepth match the actual bit depth of the pixels they are passing in,
if it doesn't match the internal depth. I tried to make that clear in the
documentation for pic.bitDepth


> > Let's keep this polite.  I'll err on the side of bumping the build
> number in the future.
>
> I may be somewhat grumpy due to coming back with my inbox full of people
> blaming me.
>

Point them at me; it was definitely my fault.

So when I bump X265_BUILD, ffmpeg will no longer try to compile against
x265 until it is patched?  How does this work in practice?  Should I be
sending patches for ffmpeg/libav when we change API?

-- 
Steve Borho
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x265-devel/attachments/20140218/85d180ee/attachment.html>