Documentation updates for the git migration

This cleanup patch updates the developer documentation with respect to
the migration to the git scm.
(cherry picked from commit 87800dc2bf8f2724a99e51bb079ad7fb4b9dfd3b)

4 files changed, 8 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/doc/TODO b/doc/TODO
index 747eee4ab1..8ff8a6b388 100644
--- a/doc/TODO
+++ b/doc/TODO
@@ -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)
diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
index b9e246f214..acffbe67e2 100644
--- a/doc/developer.texi
+++ b/doc/developer.texi
@@ -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
diff --git a/doc/optimization.txt b/doc/optimization.txt
index 5d51235983..08954f9973 100644
--- a/doc/optimization.txt
+++ b/doc/optimization.txt
@@ -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
diff --git a/doc/soc.txt b/doc/soc.txt
index 8b4a86db80..79d77d1cd7 100644
--- a/doc/soc.txt
+++ b/doc/soc.txt
@@ -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