Thu Jan 29 16:15:46 CET 2009
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Robert Swain <robert.swain at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/29 compn <tempn at twmi.rr.com>:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:49:29 +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>>On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 02:45:19PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>> Another alternative is to call this release 1, the next one 2, and so
>>>Just call it 16849 (current SVN revision). Actually I don't care, but if
>>>we are going to promote using SVN always whenever possible it makes
>> i agree. would you rather see bugreports with:
>> FFmpeg version r15666, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>> FFmpeg version blue 1, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard
> What about when we switch to git? Shall we use the commit hash instead?
We could do just what x264 does--have a versioning script that, when
configure is run, calculates the revision number and puts that in the
output binary. If there's an issue with people having snapshots and
not having git installed, the snapshots could simply have the version
number automatically inserted by the server.
IMO this is much easier than hashes because hashes give absolutely no
sense of time.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel