Re: Can't mark pbxproj as resolved
I'd say about 85% of the time when I have file(s) in conflict, not only will Versions not be able to resolve the conflict, but usually it won't even display that there are files in conflict. I have to go back to the command line to resolve the conflicts, then Versions will work as normal. Of course, since I have to go to the command line to do switches, merges, and conflict resolution, and since I find that since versions only reliably does "svn up" or "svn commit" I just use the command line instead. Shan On Feb 21, 9:19 am, Ali Elhajj wrote: > I am unable to commit the project.pbxproj file. The file is shown as > "added" in SVN. i cannot commit it and I cannot mark it as resolved. > I am able to checking the pbxUser and perspectivev3 files, but not the > project.pbxproj. > > Any suggestions? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Merge
We're talking about svn-merge/branch/switch functionality, which is a very key part of SVN. Not diff/merge stuff :) Shan On Jan 10, 5:32 pm, Steve M wrote: > I agree that diff/merge was certainly an omission. It was almost a > deal-breaker for me to buy Versions. Sofa has taken care of that now, > but they did that by adding another product (Kaleidoscope). I don't > want to have to buy another product to get a feature that should be > built into this one. > > Anyway, I use TextWrangler for diff/merge and I'm quite happy with > it. Anyone who is struggling with this feature should download and > install TextWrangler. It integrates really nicely with Versions and > it gets the job done. Apple's FileMerge is part of the Dev Tools (I > believe?) so that works fine for Objective-C developers, but web > developers running on a Mac may not decide to go that route. > > On Jan 5, 3:27 pm, Daniel Dickison wrote: > > > > > I agree -- it was useful to see that Cornerstone had gotten a merge > > feature. Competition is good and I hope it pressures Sofa to up the > > ante. > > > On the other hand, I tried the new Cornerstone and fortunately (for > > Sofa), I'll be sticking with Versions for now. We have repositories > > with hundreds of thousands of files and revisions, and Cornerstone's > > fancy timeline view doesn't seem to scale very well for large > > histories. Things like viewing the log message and diffs for a > > specific revision from 2 years ago is a lot easier to navigate with > > Versions. And to do that Versions was using 400MB RAM vs 1.5GB for > > Cornerstone. So, hopefully performance is one aspect Versions can > > stay on top while adding new features. > > > Daniel > > > On Jan 3, 3:42 pm, ct-scan wrote: > > > > I'm glad the link to Cornerstone was posted, I've been using Versions > > > since the beta, and am getting frustrated that this obvious feature > > > still isn't integrated. > > > > Maybe instead of additional UI enhancements (like the ones that just > > > came out), adding this much requested feature would be better. > > > I'd even upgrade to a new version for this feature, with no > > > hesitation. I love Versions, but it's just not the most complete tool > > > out there. > > > I hope they fix this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Congrats, Versions team
Yeah, that's what I meant. I just didn't want to say it again, I've asked for merging a couple times already on this list. Shan On Dec 2, 6:09 pm, Matthew Young wrote: > Isn't the #1 requested item branching and merging? > > -Matt > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:05 PM, David Dunham wrote: > > > > > On 2 Dec 2010, at 15:50, versions+nore...@googlegroups.com wrote: > > >> Of course, if we could get the #1 requested > >> feature added, that'd be great too. I won't mention it again, we all > >> know what it is ;) > > > I know, I've been waiting for the ability to search the log for the longest > > time. > > > But yes, nice to see a fairly substantial update. > > > David Dunham http://a-sharp.com Twitter: @ASharpLLC > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Versions" group. > > To post to this group, send email to versi...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Congrats, Versions team
I have to admit, when I heard Versions was going to get some updates, I was skeptical since we heard that for a LONG time. I'm happy to see this great step forward. Of course, if we could get the #1 requested feature added, that'd be great too. I won't mention it again, we all know what it is ;) Bottom line, I'd put my money where my mouth is. If I had to pay for an upgrade to, say "1.5" or "2.0" to get said new feature, I would. As developers, I think we can all understand there's a cost associated with adding features, so complaints about non-free updates should be minimal. Great update, here's to more of them :) Shan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Merging Branches Into Trunk
Koen, This is exactly the type of communication I was hoping for. I'm now looking forward to this upcoming version on an unpredictable timeline :) On Aug 8, 5:53 am, Koen Bok wrote: > Hey Quinn, Shan and Ray, > > For what it's worth, I can officially confirm we're working on it. > It's a tough one, but we feel we're on the right way to tackle it. > Regarding the timeframe I can't promise anything. I can however give > some hints on why this is taking some time. > > - Subversions 1.6 merging became a lot better, so we had to wait for > that. It was actually pretty tough to do 1.5>1.6 but we have it now. > - Subversions merging options are so complex that we need to make > choices to keep the ui usable, involving lots of discussions and > research. > - Merging as a problem is more then subversion alone. You also have to > deal with content/conflicts in a sensible way if you want to do it > right. > > And Quinn, if your job gets less dreamy, shoot me an email ;-) > > - Koen > > On Aug 7, 7:08 pm, Shan wrote: > > > > > Quinn, > > > No offense taken. At first, I shared your opinion, but unfortunately > > given the utter silence from the Versions team, and lack of responses > > to any methods of communication other than this group, they really > > left me with no other options. I've waited patiently since the beta > > for any sort of hint that they'll be adding merge, yet week after week > > someone asks for merge to be a feature, with no feedback from the > > team. I don't feel that I'm more important than anyone else, but I'd > > rather let them know they're about to lose a customer now, rather than > > they just don't see me upgrade to 2.0 because I'm already gone. > > > It's nice that you happen to know that 1.1 and 2.0 are being worked > > on, but all I can do IS imagine, because of the lack of communication > > from the Versions team. From what I've read on the group, they barely > > respond to sales requests, and almost never to support requests, until > > you come to this group and raise a ruckus. > > > I'm not saying that the the feature needs to be done tomorrow, or even > > a timeline on when it might be done, I'm just asking that the team > > acknowledge a year's worth of complaints of users who need the > > functionality, and give us some hope that they're actually planning on > > doing something about it. > > > Shan --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Merging Branches Into Trunk
Quinn, No offense taken. At first, I shared your opinion, but unfortunately given the utter silence from the Versions team, and lack of responses to any methods of communication other than this group, they really left me with no other options. I've waited patiently since the beta for any sort of hint that they'll be adding merge, yet week after week someone asks for merge to be a feature, with no feedback from the team. I don't feel that I'm more important than anyone else, but I'd rather let them know they're about to lose a customer now, rather than they just don't see me upgrade to 2.0 because I'm already gone. It's nice that you happen to know that 1.1 and 2.0 are being worked on, but all I can do IS imagine, because of the lack of communication from the Versions team. From what I've read on the group, they barely respond to sales requests, and almost never to support requests, until you come to this group and raise a ruckus. I'm not saying that the the feature needs to be done tomorrow, or even a timeline on when it might be done, I'm just asking that the team acknowledge a year's worth of complaints of users who need the functionality, and give us some hope that they're actually planning on doing something about it. Shan --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Merging Branches Into Trunk
Even though it's brought up pretty much weekly, nobody on the Versions team has even hinted that they're working on it. The other decent OS X SVN client, Cornerstone, also lacks this feature, and they seem to be equally unresponsive (they don't even support SVN 1.6 yet). I'm giving the Versions team about a week to respond saying that they're working on it, before abandoning it and switching to Syncro SVN. Yes, it's written in Java, but supporting all basic SVN commands is better than not. http://www.syncrosvnclient.com Shan On Aug 6, 7:46 pm, Scott Klein wrote: > If you have windows, there is a great open source shell extension > called tortoise SVN. I bought Versions assuming it would have merge > abilities for the trunk (since, you know, it seems to be the most > important of things to do with subversion) and was pretty upset last > night when I found out I'd have to use windows. Tortoise SVN works > great, though. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Another vote for branch/tag/merge
Sorry I wasn't clear... What I was talking about was having Versions suggest the revision numbers by searching the logs, not automatically doing merge tracking. Perhaps when you do a branch or merge, it could add some text to the comment for easy log scanning, thus giving hints to the users and the UI. I've got to get rid of this cold. I'm barely clear to myself, who knows how I sound to you guys :) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Another vote for branch/tag/merge
Without these, I'm stuck using the command line. With merge (in 1.4 anyway), putting in some type of merge tracking (even if it's just scanning the logs for a copy command) would really push versions far, far beyond other clients. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
