Revision 72 goals?

Archive of historical development discussions
Discussions / Development has moved to GitHub
Forum rules
*******************************
Please be aware we are now using GitHub for issue tracking and feature requests.
- This section of the forum is now closed to new topics.

*******************************
dynaflash
Veteran User
Posts: 3820
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:19 pm

Post by dynaflash »

johnallen wrote:I suggest that we not use the SVN revision when discussing release builds. Every time we check a change in, the revision is going to increment. With 4 or 5 of us commiting changes, this revision will increase fairly rapidly.

We should probably follow the release versions previously used in HB. Does anyone know the current convention for versioning releases?

Looks like the current is 0.7.1....next is 0.7.2?
Well, yes, and no. The last official binary release from titer was 0.7.1. I believe that everyone, including myself, thought that this was a build from titers last svn revison which was 69. As previously discussed, HB 0.7.1 is now believed to have been a binary created from svn rev 63. Now, it gets a bit murkier, as there is another target app in HB, which is Instant HB (which you modified in svn rev 72) which has taken advantage of all of the changes post svn rev 63.

So, the two targets (at least as far as the mac gui version goes) are not compatible from the same svn rev.

HB compiled from rev 64 plus has optical drive issues. IHB compiled from svn rev 63 isnt even called Instant Handbrake, it was Handbrake Express at that time and lacked several features found in the newer revs.

So, it is sort of a tale of two Handbrakes. Now, what I have done is backward ported HB to use the ScanController and Drive Detector from svn rev 63 but keep the newer code from svn rev 71 which rhester and company worked to hard to upgrade primarily in the x264 area for the new iPod format. I did this because using the above mentioned code for optical drive scanning caused HB to crash. So I ported backward to the last known working release that didnt crash.

Now as far as commiting changes, up to this point we have been working together to try to decide when we want to commit changes to keep the tree inline and make sure we are all working from the same slate. We are playing quite a game of catch up as we are finding out more and more where HB was when titer last left it.

So, in summary, I agree that we not use svn revison upon discussing release builds, but at the same time, it probably is important at least to those of us trying to sort this out, to realize which svn rev each release build comes from.

Yes, I believe that the next rev would be 0.7.2 at least as far as the past versioning convention has been to date.

One other thing to consider: we have binary release being distributed courtesy of MK2000 which has a fatal flaw in that as soon as you attempt drive detection, it crashes.

Although I dont want to publicly release anything too soon, it may be worth trying to release a build with the same new h.264 capabilities that doesnt crash.

These are just some of my thoughts. But, I am only one developer and am in no position to decree anything.
rhester
Veteran User
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by rhester »

My unasked-for thoughts:

- As long as the GUI remains "backwards compatible" with legacy MacOS releases, the legacy icon should be kept. Once a decision is made to fully upgrade the GUI (and thus the look-and-feel) for HandBrake and abandon older versions of MacOS, I see no harm in bringing the application icon into parity.

- 0.7.2 is the next obvious choice, yes. So far, what's been done has certainly been incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary so I see no justification in going to a 0.8.x release sequence at this time.

Rodney
mk2000
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:38 am

Post by mk2000 »

Maybe you guys already talked about it, but did you ever notice the following:

svn log "svn://multics.dynalias.com/HandBrake/tags/0.7.1/"


The log is interesting and the revision is r33.

Is this r33 essentially what is being distrubuted from the official forums?

Maybe I'm mis-reading the log.

mk2000
johnallen
Experienced
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:52 pm

Post by johnallen »

We should really try to us the svn repository to our maximum benefit.

dynaflash, you mentioned in another thread that you would be able to share your current source via ftp. I think this defeats the purpose of using svn.

If you check in your changes, we developers will have easier access to your changes for debugging and testing.

Also, the longer we go without checking in changes, the harder it will be when we try to merge the differences.
johnallen
Experienced
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:52 pm

Post by johnallen »

Also,

It is possible to revert a change. For example, if you check in something that you later decide is wrong, just do this:

-Check out the 'good' revision of the file(s) you want to go back to
-Then commit your working copy back to the repository

This is actually a good thing, because it keeps all revision. It keeps a log and history of each file. Someday you may want to go back and at least look at the 'bad' file for reference purposes.
mk2000
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:38 am

Post by mk2000 »

mk2000 wrote:Maybe you guys already talked about it, but did you ever notice the following:

svn log "svn://multics.dynalias.com/HandBrake/tags/0.7.1/"


The log is interesting and the revision is r33.

Is this r33 essentially what is being distrubuted from the official forums?

Maybe I'm mis-reading the log.

mk2000
Ah, the miracles of RTFM

Nevermind my above comment.
Post Reply