Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Le quintidi 15 ventôse, an CCXXIV, Timothy Gu a écrit : > The date is considered to be "good" but perhaps not as necessary. I think the date should be present too, it is the only information that can be parsed without any previous knowledge. > - It should also be gitrevisions(7)-compatible

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: > >> The versioning scheme is supposed to make people's life easier. > > The patch would make my life more difficult . > If you can't even explain why, then I wouldn't expect many people

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: > The versioning scheme is supposed to make people's life easier. The patch would make my life more difficult . Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Am 04.03.16 um 23:44 schrieb Timothy Gu: > [...] > So here I propose the following for the master branch: > > n3.1-dev-N-78911-gf81c81c >/ | \ \ > /| \\ > next distinguish commits since commit > release from

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:44:28 -0800 Timothy Gu wrote: > So after all the email exchanges, I think there are certain things > that our version SHOULD contain: > > - The hash > - The next release (i.e. n3.1) > - A way to compare two versions > > The date is considered to be

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:46:42PM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On 04.03.2016, at 11:24, Nicolas George wrote: > > > The Git (short) hash carries all the information by itself, so it should be > > present. But extra, redundant, information can be added for the convenience >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Am 04.03.16 um 22:50 schrieb Timothy Gu: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 06:48:04PM +0100, Thilo Borgmann wrote: >> Am 04.03.16 um 17:57 schrieb Timothy Gu: >>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:55:42AM +0100, Thilo Borgmann wrote: Am 04.03.16 um 08:58 schrieb wm4: > > Being able to see the, well,

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 06:48:04PM +0100, Thilo Borgmann wrote: > Am 04.03.16 um 17:57 schrieb Timothy Gu: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:55:42AM +0100, Thilo Borgmann wrote: > >> Am 04.03.16 um 08:58 schrieb wm4: > >>> > >>> Being able to see the, well, version in the version output (instead of >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On 04.03.2016, at 11:24, Nicolas George wrote: > Le quintidi 15 ventôse, an CCXXIV, Thilo Borgmann a écrit : >> Neither a good play on words nor elaborative; not even helpful. >> >> You say they are random numbers, CE says it is continuous. What is correct? >> >> Let's assume

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Le quintidi 15 ventôse, an CCXXIV, Timothy Gu a écrit : > One object that can be raised against this is that the current versioning and > the new versioning are both compatible with Git. Try > > git show n3.1-dev-400-g3af71ac > git show N-78863-g3af71ac "git show 3af71ac" is enough. With

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Am 04.03.16 um 17:57 schrieb Timothy Gu: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:55:42AM +0100, Thilo Borgmann wrote: >> Am 04.03.16 um 08:58 schrieb wm4: >>> >>> Being able to see the, well, version in the version output (instead of >>> random numbers) sounds like a pretty convincing argument. >> >> Neither

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:20:09AM +, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Timo Rothenpieler rothenpieler.org> writes: > > > The current versioning scheme is indeed simple, but > > useless in almost all other aspects. > > FFmpeg has a linear development scheme, how can you call > a continuous

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:24:31AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Basically, the version could be something like > "g510046c:N78879-3.0master417-H20160303": One object that can be raised against this is that the current versioning and the new versioning are both compatible with Git. Try git

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:55:42AM +0100, Thilo Borgmann wrote: > Am 04.03.16 um 08:58 schrieb wm4: > > > > Being able to see the, well, version in the version output (instead of > > random numbers) sounds like a pretty convincing argument. > > Neither a good play on words nor elaborative; not

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Le quintidi 15 ventôse, an CCXXIV, Thilo Borgmann a écrit : > Neither a good play on words nor elaborative; not even helpful. > > You say they are random numbers, CE says it is continuous. What is correct? > > Let's assume the N-tag is not random, then it is a useful extension of the >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Timo Rothenpieler rothenpieler.org> writes: > The current versioning scheme is indeed simple, but > useless in almost all other aspects. FFmpeg has a linear development scheme, how can you call a continuous versioning scheme useless? It reflects 1:1 on how FFmpeg is developed. > It gives no

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

You are skipping everything I think about N-tags you want to patch away... why? Am 04.03.16 um 11:07 schrieb Timo Rothenpieler: >> So what about the release tag? Well it is a quite useful extension because of >> the already mentioned possibility of determining the existing features at >> once.

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

wm4 googlemail.com> writes: > Being able to see the, well, version in the version output > (instead of random numbers) What is random about the version number using current FFmpeg? Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

> So what about the release tag? Well it is a quite useful extension because of > the already mentioned possibility of determining the existing features at > once. > I'm pro adding it to the version string. The release tags are not made in the master branch, so git describe won't pick them up.

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

>> Of course, this argument operates on the premise that >> making things easier for users is of utmost concern >> for us. Please inspire me if this is not the case. > > On the contrary, I believe while the current versioing > scheme is simple and understandable, the suggested one > is

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Am 04.03.16 um 08:58 schrieb wm4: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:47:14 +0100 > Thilo Borgmann wrote: > >> Am 04.03.16 um 08:23 schrieb wm4: >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:55:35 + (UTC) >>> Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes:

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:47:14 +0100 Thilo Borgmann wrote: > Am 04.03.16 um 08:23 schrieb wm4: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:55:35 + (UTC) > > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > >> Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> Of course, this argument operates

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Am 04.03.16 um 08:23 schrieb wm4: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:55:35 + (UTC) > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Of course, this argument operates on the premise that >>> making things easier for users is of utmost concern >>> for us. Please

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:55:35 + (UTC) Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course, this argument operates on the premise that > > making things easier for users is of utmost concern > > for us. Please inspire me if this is not the case. > >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:55:35AM +, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course, this argument operates on the premise that > > making things easier for users is of utmost concern > > for us. Please inspire me if this is not the case. > > On the contrary, I

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Timothy Gu gmail.com> writes: > Of course, this argument operates on the premise that > making things easier for users is of utmost concern > for us. Please inspire me if this is not the case. On the contrary, I believe while the current versioing scheme is simple and understandable, the

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:04:09PM +, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Timo Rothenpieler rothenpieler.org> writes: > > > So instead of > > > > N-78885-g966eade > > The continuous numbering scheme is very convenient when > answering user questions and it reflects very well the > (past and

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote: >> Accessing a remote URL in the version script seems like a bad idea to me. > > I aggree, but I'm unsure how to propperly address the issue. > The problem is that a plain "git pull" does not update tags, > so if you

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Timo Rothenpieler rothenpieler.org> writes: > So instead of > > N-78885-g966eade The continuous numbering scheme is very convenient when answering user questions and it reflects very well the (past and current) development model of FFmpeg that is not release-driven ... > > One now gets >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

> Accessing a remote URL in the version script seems like a bad idea to me. I aggree, but I'm unsure how to propperly address the issue. The problem is that a plain "git pull" does not update tags, so if you have an older clone you allways updated via git pull, you end up with a version number

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

Am 03.03.2016 22:46 schrieb "Timo Rothenpieler" : > > The version numbers based on the 15 years old N tag are confusing and > don't offer a lot of information about what release the version is close > to. > > This patch stops using the N tag and always bases it on the most

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] version.sh: Always use latest tag for generated version number

The version numbers based on the 15 years old N tag are confusing and don't offer a lot of information about what release the version is close to. This patch stops using the N tag and always bases it on the most recent dev tag instead. So instead of N-78885-g966eade One now gets