04-22-2010, 01:37 PM
cmccmc
04-22-2010, 08:08 PM
it's not exactly one revision. They branched off a build from the main code and only added stability improvements from then on.
04-23-2010, 06:51 AM
They were throwing in SVN changes almost until a week before 2.0 launched, and ignored bunches inbetween. There is no possibly way to get a build number.
I don't know why you'd use 2.0 anyway, since you can just grab one of the compiled versions and be much more up to date.
I don't know why you'd use 2.0 anyway, since you can just grab one of the compiled versions and be much more up to date.
04-24-2010, 12:12 AM
I'm confused by some of the comments here...
Creating a branch in SVN results in a rev. being generated. However, I don't believe any new branch was created for 2.0 (i.e. they used the existing stable branch).
There should be a revision under the "stable" branch that aligns with the 2.0 release, unfortunately since it doesn't look as though the release revision was placed under a "tags" branch it's difficult to identify which revision lines up with the release.
You're best bet, until someone with more knowledge checks in here would be to pull a revision from the "stable" branch closest to the date stamp on the 2.0 release. That would appear to be r5350.
Creating a branch in SVN results in a rev. being generated. However, I don't believe any new branch was created for 2.0 (i.e. they used the existing stable branch).
There should be a revision under the "stable" branch that aligns with the 2.0 release, unfortunately since it doesn't look as though the release revision was placed under a "tags" branch it's difficult to identify which revision lines up with the release.
You're best bet, until someone with more knowledge checks in here would be to pull a revision from the "stable" branch closest to the date stamp on the 2.0 release. That would appear to be r5350.