I just tried this again in a fresh workspace and had no issues. *"The .psf files are Subclipse-specific, so presumably you are using Subclipse. What version?"*
eclipse 3.4.0 tigris.org SVN Team Provider Code 1.4.0 tigris.org SVNKit Client Adapter 1.5.0 SVNKit Library Plug-in 1.2.0.4389 *"What special settings, if any, to work around the problem?"* None * "I haven't seen any Subclipse releases since Collabnet updated the Eclipse bug report saying that it would be in the next version they made available." *I just uninstalled Subversive, then installed Subclipse from their update site when I grabbed Ganymede.* * *"I've got to believe that being the official SVN plugin is going to give Subversive an advantage over time." *Agreed. In the bug report you refer to Mark says on 2008-05-07 he'd fix it in a upcoming Subclipse release. I just checked the change log on the Subclipse website and in version 1.3.16 released on 2008-05-07 it says "Fixed a problem importing a PSF on Eclipse 3.4". Brian On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Brian Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > "Has anyone tried this to see if the bugs have been fixed that affect > > our psf files?" > > > > I am using Ganymede and have used several of the .psf files without > issue. > > The .psf files are Subclipse-specific, so presumably you are using > Subclipse. What version? What special settings, if any, to work > around the problem? I haven't seen any Subclipse releases since > Collabnet updated the Eclipse bug report saying that it would be in > the next version they made available. > > > "Now that Subversive has been chosen over Subclipse for integration into > > Eclipse, the Collabnet folks may be thinking of dropping Subclipse or > > reducing its priority relative to other projects, so we should probably > be > > considering switching." > > > > I don't think Suclipse will be going away anytime soon, and in my opinion > > its the better plug-in anyways. > > > > Mark Phippard (a Subclipse/CollabNet dev) had this to say on another blog > I > > read: > > > > "...Eclipse did not pick one plug-in over the other. Eclipse does not > pick > > anything. Projects make proposals to become an Eclipse.org project and as > > long as they follow the guidelines they are generally approved. We made > the > > conscious decision to not make the Subclipse project part of Eclipse.org. > > It's true that Subversive wasn't picked over Subclipse, because > Collabnet withdrew the Subclipse proposal, but whether it's because of > the IP considerations mentioned in the blog you quote > (http://www.stevestreeting.com/2008/02/20/fickle-creatures-are-we/), > or because they knew they'd lose, or because of internal Collabnet > commercial considerations, is impossible to know. > > The rest that follows that first sentence though is all just spin. > Subversive *is* an official Eclipse project. It *did* get > picked/approved. It is *not* an automatic process as Mark tries to > imply. What impact this will have long term remains to be seen, but > I've got to believe that being the official SVN plugin is going to > give Subversive an advantage over time. > > Having said all that, I'd really, REALLY like Subclipse to fix the > bug, so if there's a release that's got the bug fix in it, I'd love to > hear about it. > > Tom > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
