I really really wish Sofa would have the same kind of user feedback
system as Those Other Guys, so that we knew they were listening and
responding to feedback. I know people have been begging for merge/
switch capability from the beginning, but the lack of acknowledgment
from the development team i
It's a shame really. If it had merge it would be the best looking and working
without a shadow of a doubt.
Why do great looking apps always lack key functionality!
Cue
On 11 Jan 2011, at 20:04, Charles Fahey wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Just to clarify, Kaleidoscope does not merge. It only displ
Hi Steve,
Just to clarify, Kaleidoscope does not merge. It only displays
differences between files - beautifully I might add. But no merging in
Kaleidoscope.
- Charles
On Jan 10, 6:32 pm, Steve M wrote:
> I agree that diff/merge was certainly an omission. It was almost a
> deal-breaker for me
Indeed it does come with dev tools and text wrangler works just as well with
Versions as does Apples native FileMerge. The ingenius part of text wrangler is
the ability to have the freedom to choose what gets merged where so on so
forth. Kaleidoscope however is more or less a difference tool. To
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 no
I think we are referring to BRANCHING and MERGING, not diff and merging of
singular files...
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:32 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
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.
A
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 t
My comment about discussing Merge on this list was to make this point:
The list is hosted by Sofa. It's their living room and we're guests
invited to discuss Versions.
Comments comparing Versions and other products would probably be very
helpful to people who are still in the decision making p
Hi,
just to chime in: personally I donot need merge, currently just working on my
dissertation from a local repository. But that need could occur in the future…
I've had the occasional looks at Cornerstone but could find my way around more
easily in Versions. I prefer the diff via TextWrangler
Looking at how many people work at sofa I think they're actually up to
something, something with their current software. They're most likely not
telling us due to 'apple-like' tactics where they don't want to tell us XYZ and
then not deliver Z. I personally don't need merge and don't use kaleido
I share everyone's interest in this feature.
Unfortunately, if you look at Sofa's other product Kaleidoscope, it is
also nicely designed, and also suffers from a surreptitiously missing
feature: the ability to merge differences. That's right, it's a diff
tool that only displays differences.
Sofa
It would be nice to get a response from Sofa as to wether or not Merge is
even in the works...
--
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 emai
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
Hey Mike -
I see your point, but my aim wasn't to plug the competition. I tried
Versions out and found it lacking, so its only natural to offer up
some kind of benchmark for what I see as a superior product. Versions
needs to up their ante, because there are alot of new and improved
tools coming u
I agree to some extent. For those that don't necessarily require merge are
happy with a fancy interface that works well for what it does. What bugs me is
that sometimes it feels like Versions is too comfortable and doesn't see any
competition. The truth in the matter is that when you invest in a
It's more of like this, for me I bought versions long ago and suggested and
asked for merge since the beginning. Never got the feature. Very frustrated and
eventually paid even more for Cornerstone... when wanted it in Versions the
whole time. If it had not been for someone making the "plug" as
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Mike Combs wrote:
> No offense intended, and I'm just a Versions user, but I think it's rude to
> use this thread to plug the competition. Surely there must be other forums
> for that, where people are still trying to decide which tool to use.
Agreed. The merge t
No offense intended, and I'm just a Versions user, but I think it's rude
to use this thread to plug the competition. Surely there must be other
forums for that, where people are still trying to decide which tool to use.
To everyone: Happy New Year!
On 12/30/10 7:20 PM, Jay wrote:
I've had to
I've had to do the same, switched to Cornerstone 2 - merging from the
command line combined with no option to remove the user name from the
repo url on checkout made Cornerstone attractive.
On Dec 30, 2:36 am, TT wrote:
> hey gabe, thanks for providing a link to Cornerstone 2. i wasn't aware
> of
hey gabe, thanks for providing a link to Cornerstone 2. i wasn't aware
of it before, but I am definitely switching now, since the pace of
development for Versions has been monumentally disappointing.
On 29 дец, 19:08, gabe wrote:
> Just picked up Versions. After using it quite a bit, its a prett
I found it to be rather slow though. Not only merging but the
application in general. Though that might be due to the size of the
repo I tested it with.
Kindest regards,
Marijn
On Nov 18, 12:31 am, Cue wrote:
> I agree. Cornerstone's merge methodology works well in at least the basic
> way. I
I agree. Cornerstone's merge methodology works well in at least the basic way.
I haven't yet had the unfortunate experience of having to merge heavy conflicts
so I cannot speculate to that extent. But it does the job, and if Versions
incorporated such a feature I may just hang on to it
Cue
O
On Nov 13, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Chris Muktar wrote:
> No GUI app supports
> this very well, but it would be the killer feature of Versions if it
> did- even cornerstone doesn't have that. As teams grow, using merge
> becomes ESSENTIAL and there needs to be a GUI for doing it (even if
> it's just ba
Well, I don't have time to go into gory detail, so I suggest reading the book
URL below. If you prefer a single HTML page so you don't have to click through
lots of individual pages, this URL will also jump you to that chapter:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn-book.html#svn.branchm
Thanks for the post Quinn, I am however completely lost!
I have a Branch 'sandbox' which is sitting at revision 251 and the
trunk (which has has a couple of changes since checkout of sandbox) is
247, any help on this would be great, did manage to run a diff via
terminal, but still completely lost.
From Terminal, you'll want to look at using `svn merge --
reintegrate ...` — you can find more detail by typing `svn help
merge`. This assumes you're using SVN 1.5+. Also check out the SVN
book parts on merging. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.html
- Quinn
On May 12, 201
I use DiffMerge on OSX - its not anywhere near as polished.. and it
takes a few steps.
http://www.sourcegear.com/diffmerge/screenshots.html
Make sure you have both trunk/branch(s) you want to merge, open
diffmerge, pick your source/target directories. then it will show
you all the differences,
+1 on "merge" support, as well as a related feature, "cherrypick"
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM, mun wrote:
> workflow is entirely different but definitely +1 on "merge" support.
> .m
>
> On Dec 1, 1:54 pm, Zanfe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'd explain my doubts.
>>
>> I usually have the stable versio
workflow is entirely different but definitely +1 on "merge" support.
.m
On Dec 1, 1:54 pm, Zanfe wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'd explain my doubts.
>
> I usually have the stable version of my site in the trunk and I work,
> for the updates, in a branch.
> When I complete my updates I would put my branch v
I have 3 mac users switching from PC in the office and using Versions,
they are all crying for merge.
So I guess that makes +3
On May 7, 4:15 pm, jcdesrochers wrote:
> Just a quick question about Versions development road map do you
> plan in a near future to add merge support??? If so... an
Yep, +1 here too.
I introduced SVN to our shop in the last month. With our staff still
grasping concepts, keeping all the interaction within one UI will
encourage us all to become Versions evangelists, not to mention depend
all the more on your tool instead of searching for alternatives.
Cheers,
+1 for me.
Having recently moved from Perforce to SVN I'm a little surprised how poorly
supported merging is (in general). In the past we'd create branches for any
non-trivial development task and integrate back into the trunk only after
acceptance testing.
Whilst Perforce's clients are certainly
I bought and use Versions, and use Subcommander for svn merge + svn
switch. I guess I'll add my +1 on the chance it might help to
influence the developers, and add what I posted a year ago, expanding
on Ray's suggestion to share how we use our tools..
Our workflow uses developer branches, that we
Conflict resolution is a separate issue and feature from merge support
— conflicts can occur even without branches or tags, and even with a
single developer, so long as there are conflicting edits in multiple
working copies.
Out of curiosity, do other clients offer conflict resolution? In m
Another +1 from me. We're a cross-platform shop so I tend to use
TortoiseSVN on Windows to do merges, but a fast, integrated merge
window would make Versions much nicer to use.
On May 7, 5:15 pm, jcdesrochers wrote:
> Just a quick question about Versions development road map do you
> plan in
I've never used a tool other than command line svn and a text editor to
handle merges because all of my merging has been pretty simple. However, I
would probably become more adventurous with what I used merging for if I had
a good tool to help me with it.
To make this thread more helpful to the Ve
+1 here too
Sorry, I generally avoid these +1 threads, but Merge seems such an
obvious, essential, svn function that is missing from Versions. Pretty
much everything else I need is in there.
I kept switching between Versions and SmartSVN (for merging) but now I
don't bother I'm in SmartSVN
+1. Version such a great svn client in all other cases. But lack of
conflicts resolving...
I have to avoid revert my changes, update and add them again. It's
such a headache
On May 7, 7:15 pm, jcdesrochers wrote:
> Just a quick question about Versions development road map do you
> plan in a
+1 here.
On May 7, 7:15 pm, jcdesrochers wrote:
> Just a quick question about Versions development road map do you
> plan in a near future to add merge support??? If so... any ETA??
>
> I'm evaluating the svn clients for mac and the merge functionality is
> a must for us.
>
> Thanks for answ
Nope, that's copying, and if you copy a directory to where you store
branches, that's branching. Merging is when you consolidate the
changes from a branch.
- Quinn
On May 30, 2009, at 9:53 AM, derekr wrote:
Isn't it merging when you hold alt and drag the dir/file into the dir
you want to
Isn't it merging when you hold alt and drag the dir/file into the dir
you want to merge with.
On May 29, 9:30 am, denisa wrote:
> Ditto on the +1 for a Merge feature.
>
> On May 28, 11:57 pm, drzax wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yet another +1. Please. I was so excited about Versions until I
> > discovered t
Ditto on the +1 for a Merge feature.
On May 28, 11:57 pm, drzax wrote:
> Yet another +1. Please. I was so excited about Versions until I
> discovered this was missing. svn switch too.
>
> On May 26, 4:32 am, rwgrier wrote:
>
> > +1 here. I currently have to fire up another SVN tool (which isn't
Yet another +1. Please. I was so excited about Versions until I
discovered this was missing. svn switch too.
On May 26, 4:32 am, rwgrier wrote:
> +1 here. I currently have to fire up another SVN tool (which isn't as
> nice) to do merges. Please add merging.
>
> On May 7, 12:15 pm, jcdesrochers
+1 here. I currently have to fire up another SVN tool (which isn't as
nice) to do merges. Please add merging.
On May 7, 12:15 pm, jcdesrochers wrote:
> Just a quick question about Versions development road map do you
> plan in a near future to add merge support??? If so... any ETA??
>
> I'm
45 matches
Mail list logo
