[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/filters: document the unstability of the shorthand options notation.

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:42:06AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas George <george at nsup.org>
> ---
>  doc/filters.texi | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/filters.texi b/doc/filters.texi
> index 7e5a9a625a..886cd5a7e8 100644
> --- a/doc/filters.texi
> +++ b/doc/filters.texi
> @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ follow the same constraints order of the previous point. The following
>  
>  @end itemize
>  
> +Future evolutions of filters may require inserting new options or changing
> +their order, especially for the non-essential options, and that would break
> +options given without their name. For that reason, uses that require
> +stability should favor the @var{key=value} notation.

This is ambigous and if interpreted litterally
then even a scale=320:240 would no longer be guranteed to work
but would require scale=width=320:height=240 to be used.

the shorthand is widely used and convenient
IMHO declaring it _all_ unstable would be a mistake

also iam thinking that we should either accept the option order we
choose when initially adding a filter and try
to maintain compatibility whenever that is possible.
Or specify exactly for each filter in the code which options are allowed
in shorthand and then also not accept options beyond that if accessed
through shorthand

That way anything that works will contine to work and one cannot
mistakly write a script that uses unstable shorthand options


[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool.
-- Epicurus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20170805/5bf717c2/attachment.sig>