[FFmpeg-devel] Who is against GIT now? (Was: [RFC] libswscale into the FFmpeg SVN repo)
Mon Apr 6 16:00:44 CEST 2009
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Reimar D?ffinger
<Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:18:07PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:40:22PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >>> If you want to do non-standard things you need your own scripts.
>> >>> Strangely the rest of the world is doing fine with SHA-1 id's.
>> >> Strangely, some of the other distributed revision control systems do
>> >> implement version numbers. ?At least mercurial and bazaar IIRC, which in
>> >> practice amounts to everyone except git.
>> > By "rest of the world" I meant "the rest of the world that uses git".
>> > But in any case, mercurial+bazaar are the minority here; most people
>> > use git.
>> Bitkeeper uses revision numbers, and it's a royal mess when merging
>> branches. ?I've enver used hg or bazaar, nor would I ever consider
>> doing so.
> Well, I am not sure that there is a need for revision numbers, but
> particularly for FATE the "necessary" thing IMO is a way to uniquely
> identify a specific version that
> 1) allows ordering
> 2) allows to know if there were any changes in-between
> I guess 1) could be solved by using
> as one big number, 2) is a bit harder though you could
> append the "revision" of the next version or something.
> Wasn't some revision control system supposed to use fractional revision
> numbers which would break only one of the two revision number systems
> when merging (actually it could be used to keep all "mostly" intact by
> e.g. merging revisons 542 and 934 into 542.934 etc.)?
I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this in another thread, but, have
you checked 'git describe'?
$ git describe --tags
More information about the ffmpeg-devel