> On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 09:52, Adam R. B. Jack wrote: > > > This misery is probably partly my own (not being an SVN expert, and SVN has > > yet to mature) > > I'm going to take issue with this. :-) > > It's *mostly* due to the fact that Subclipse still needs a lot of work.
Sure, if Subclipse were there (and had that work you mention) & if it solved this problem then I'd use it, and be happy. That said, I was forced to give up on Subclipse, so it doesn't help. :) The only comment I meant to make about SVN was that it isn't mature enough to deal with odd 'external factors' (like Eclipse moving directories containing .svn sub-directories) and with dumb users like me (who've read the manual scantily at best, and don't have bandwidth to re-join the SVN mailing list just to ask the occasional question.) Nothing in what SVN does ought make it want to deal with this mis-use scenario (above), except it is a fact of this user's life (until I give up on Eclipse, loved 2.x dislike 3.x (over modem), or settle the projects settle down and stop major refactoring.) Forgive me for being down on this stuff, I think I've reached my tolerance point for working over a modem & needs some time off. When SVN works, it works nicely. regards, Adam
