Thu Jan 29 16:25:04 CET 2009
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:15:46 -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
>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.
i think we should modify our git server to use svn revision numbers
instead of hashes everywhere. this will get rid of the hash nightmare
More information about the ffmpeg-devel