@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ unassigned TODO: (unordered)

 - JPEG2000 decoder & encoder

 - MPEG4 GMC encoding support

 - macroblock based pixel format (better cache locality, somewhat complex, one paper claimed it faster for high res)

-- regression tests for codecs which do not have an encoder (I+P-frame bitstream in svn)

+- regression tests for codecs which do not have an encoder (I+P-frame bitstream in the 'master' branch)

 - add support for using mplayers video filters to ffmpeg

 - H264 encoder

 - per MB ratecontrol (so VCD and such do work better)

@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ send a reminder by email. Your patch should eventually be dealt with.

     If it depends on a parser or a library, did you add that dependency in

     configure?

 @item

-    Did you "svn add" the appropriate files before commiting?

+    Did you "git add" the appropriate files before committing?

 @end enumerate

 @section patch submission checklist

@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ send a reminder by email. Your patch should eventually be dealt with.

 @item

     Is the patch a unified diff?

 @item

-    Is the patch against latest FFmpeg SVN?

+    Is the patch against latest FFmpeg git master branch?

 @item

     Are you subscribed to ffmpeg-dev?

     (the list is subscribers only due to spam)

@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ send a reminder by email. Your patch should eventually be dealt with.

 @section Patch review process

 All patches posted to ffmpeg-devel will be reviewed, unless they contain a

-clear note that the patch is not for SVN.

+clear note that the patch is not for the git master branch.

 Reviews and comments will be posted as replies to the patch on the

 mailing list. The patch submitter then has to take care of every comment,

 that can be by resubmitting a changed patch or by discussion. Resubmitted

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ Understanding these overoptimized functions:

 As many functions tend to be a bit difficult to understand because

 of optimizations, it can be hard to optimize them further, or write

 architecture-specific versions. It is recommended to look at older

-revisions of the interesting files (for a web frontend try ViewVC at

-http://svn.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg/trunk/).

+revisions of the interesting files (web frontends for the various FFmpeg

+branches are listed at http://ffmpeg.org/download.html).

 Alternatively, look into the other architecture-specific versions in

 the x86/, ppc/, alpha/ subdirectories. Even if you don't exactly

 comprehend the instructions, it could help understanding the functions

@@ -9,14 +9,14 @@ it's a little late for this year's soc (2006).

 The Goal:

 Our goal in respect to soc is and must be of course exactly one thing and

 that is to improve FFmpeg, to reach this goal, code must

-* conform to the svn policy and patch submission guidelines

+* conform to the development policy and patch submission guidelines

 * must improve FFmpeg somehow (faster, smaller, "better",

   more codecs supported, fewer bugs, cleaner, ...)

 for mentors and other developers to help students to reach that goal it is

 essential that changes to their codebase are publicly visible, clean and

 easy reviewable that again leads us to:

-* use of a revision control system like svn

+* use of a revision control system like git

 * separation of cosmetic from non-cosmetic changes (this is almost entirely

   ignored by mentors and students in soc 2006 which might lead to a suprise

   when the code will be reviewed at the end before a possible inclusion in