Revision history [back]

Dear OpenCV team! I have one generic question - is the opencv project being managed by anyone or not really? For example:

• How is the decision being made on whether particular contribution is inline with OpenCV roadmap or not? Is there any release plan available for public?
• Who and how decides whether to remove or update an existing interface? I've seen many changes in recent version (3.1), which break previously available interface (3.0.0-rc1 or 2.4.x). I believe such changes should be discussed with community as we humble users )) expect that opencv versions are backward compatible at least within one release.
• Some of popular algorithms are also changing very dramatically even within one major release. For example, MSER feature detector produces substantially different number of feature points in version 3.0.0-rc1 and 3.1 on the same image. This is very unexpected situation as it is essentially deterring users from upgrading to a newer version. Just an idea - can we have a compiler flag, which enforces backward compatibility on the underlying algorithm level with previous versions? Another alternative is to keep older versions of algorithms with the ability to switch them on or off during compilation from source (for example, MSER 3.0, MSER 3.1 etc).

Dear OpenCV team! I have one generic question - is the opencv project being managed by anyone or not really? For example:

• How is the decision being made on whether particular contribution is inline with OpenCV roadmap or not? Is there any release plan available for public?
• Who and how decides whether to remove or update an existing interface? I've seen many changes in recent version (3.1), which break previously available interface (3.0.0-rc1 or 2.4.x). I believe such changes should be discussed with community as we humble users )) expect that opencv versions are backward compatible at least within one release.
• Some of popular algorithms are also changing very dramatically even within one major release. For example, MSER feature detector produces substantially different number of feature points in version 3.0.0-rc1 and 3.1 on the same image. This is very unexpected situation as it is essentially deterring users from upgrading to a newer version. Just an idea - can we have a compiler flag, which enforces backward compatibility on the underlying algorithm level with previous versions? Another alternative is to keep older versions of algorithms with the ability to switch them on or off during compilation from source (for example, MSER 3.0, MSER 3.1 etc).

Dear OpenCV team! I have one generic question - is the opencv project being managed by anyone or not really? For example:

• How is the decision being made on whether particular contribution is inline with OpenCV roadmap or not? Is there any release plan available for public?
• Who and how decides whether to remove or update an existing interface? I've seen many changes in recent version (3.1), which break previously available interface (3.0.0-rc1 or 2.4.x). I believe such changes should be discussed with community as we humble users )) expect that opencv versions are backward compatible at least within one release.
• Some of popular algorithms are also changing very dramatically even within one major release. For example, MSER feature detector produces substantially different number of feature points in version 3.0.0-rc1 and 3.1 on the same image. This is very unexpected situation as it is essentially deterring users from upgrading to a newer version. Just an idea - can we have a compiler flag, which enforces backward compatibility on the underlying algorithm level with previous versions? Another alternative is to keep older versions of algorithms with the ability to switch them on or off during compilation from source (for example, MSER 3.0, MSER 3.1 etc).

OpenCV is really cool staff but after playng a bit with it I got an impression (may be totally wrong) that there is no management at all; contributions are sometimes poorly explained and it is not always clear what is driving them.