Last I check the fink (or was it the binary apt-get) svn package was
not being maintained :-(
--jason
On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 02:16:34AM -0000,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
From: Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SVN functionality (was: geronimo-dev Digest 14 Aug 2003
22:49:29 -0000 Issue 62)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:24:17 +0100
On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 01:17 Europe/London, Greg Stein wrote:
...
Yes, there will no doubt be differences. Here's how I see the main
one:
Not supported on the OS that I use to develop all my code versus an
ability to move code from one place in the repository to another.
WHAT?! Subversion is fully supported on MacOS X. A number of the SVN
developers' primary platform is MacOS (e.g. Justin Erenkrantz).
And from what Noel was saying, it seems that it may be that all you
need to
do is to build svnup on your platform, and it will work within Eclipse.
Subversion is built using the Apache Portable Runtime (APR), meaning
it runs
everywhere the Apache web server does. That is a *lot* of platforms.
Sorry, but I don't really care how the server works -- I need the
client to work :-)
The command line client absolutely works on your platform. It has for
a long
time. And it sounds like subclipse might, if you simply build the
sucker.
...
Yeah, these are all nice things but the only thing (IMHO) that makes
SVN stand out better than CVS is the move. And you can do it in CVS;
you just move the ,v file from one directory to another.
Um. Moving the ,v file is the worst thing you could do. That totally
breaks
checking out older versions (by tag or by date).
...
The suggestion that "lack of Eclipse" integration is enough to *not*
consider SVN seems rather short-sighted. It seems like you aren't
considering the other side of the equation. What do you *get* by
switching?
The ability to not develop code on my machine? A small space saving on
the server? Log messages from when the code was very old?
You're off the deep end here. SVN works fine on MacOS X.
...
Of course, I'm biased :-), but I also think the discussion needs to
think
about more items than simply Eclipse integration.
There aren't a whole lot of other decent tools available for free on
Mac OS X. Cutting a small-but-non-negligible user-base out of
development to save bytes on the server isn't a good tradeoff IMHO.
It isn't about saving bytes. It is about tracking the history of the
project. 'svn copy' is also just as important as moves. And the atomic
commits. And...
But your premise about "cutting out..." doesn't hold. Again, SVN works
just
hunky dory on MacOS X. No MacOS developers would be cut out.
SVN clients may exist, but there's no way I'd want to use a source
management tool outside of Eclipse ...
"CVS might be integrated with Eclipse, but there's no way I'd want to
use a
source management tool that doesn't support move/copy."
If you're not administering the server, I'm not sure you'd see much
difference. If you are administering the server, then yes, there's
probably something to say for the upgrade.
Hunh? I'm not sure that I follow this. Are you referring back to your
"save
a few bytes" comment?
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
