Gary Poster wrote:
Where's the visual diff?
Where's the interactive log of revisions?
Where's the repository browser?
FWIW, I don't know if TortoiseBzr has this. I'd be surprised if it
didn't have these, especially the first two.
TortoiseSVN's log is now *very* interactive. I'd be
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Previously Marius Gedminas wrote:
BTW I've yet to see a firewall that blocks SSH. Am I lucky?
Yes. Blocking ssh is very common in larger companies in me experience.
An ssh server running on port 443 (HTTPS) can come in very handy. ssh -D
gives you a socks proxy,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Unless newer SVN versions improved on this: using different
access protocols is hampered by svn:external as they were (still
are?) required to be absolute urls (including the protocal).
This way, the access protocol may change in between of a
2009/4/6 Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Previously Marius Gedminas wrote:
BTW I've yet to see a firewall that blocks SSH. Am I lucky?
Yes. Blocking ssh is very common in larger companies in me experience.
An ssh server running on port 443 (HTTPS) can come in
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Just beware, 1.5 sucks:
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3242
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/84308/focus=84019
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Just beware, 1.5 sucks:
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3242
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/84308/focus=84019
Previously Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Just beware, 1.5 sucks:
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3242
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/84308/focus=84019
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:39, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
I'm more worried about the lack of merging working and random errors
when adding files. Those are pretty serious failures from where I'm
sitting...
The merging is due to lack of merging info when branching, the 'random
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
Note that we are now up to svn 1.6.
Which still does not fix this, and is preventing people from upgrading
to the 1.5 client, and thus from using checkouts using relative paths.
Bugger, that is
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
Note that we are now up to svn 1.6.
Which still does not fix this, and is preventing people from upgrading
to the 1.5 client, and thus from using checkouts using relative paths.
Bugger, that is indeed correct. I may not
On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Sadly, I suspect none of the tools are as advanced as TortoiseSVN.
Which
is a real shame :-( Perforce maybe? ;-)
Fair enough that bzr didn't take your fancy, but FWIW, did you try
TortoiseBzr? That has received love
Marius Gedminas wrote at 2009-4-3 01:34 +0300:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
So, svn.zope.org causes me pain at the moment:
- it uses the bizarre svn or svn+ssh protocols, which I find annoying
(ports blocked on routers, can't check with a browser, etc)
+10
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Unless newer SVN versions improved on this: using different
access protocols is hampered by svn:external as they were (still
are?) required to be absolute urls (including the protocal).
This way, the access protocol may change in between of a checkout
(involving
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:10:10AM +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Marius Gedminas wrote at 2009-4-3 01:34 +0300:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
So, svn.zope.org causes me pain at the moment:
- it uses the bizarre svn or svn+ssh protocols, which I find annoying
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 17:48, Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as wrote:
This is a very good point I'd forgotten about. However, currently the
existing svn:externals all point to read-only svn:// URLs, and switching
them to http:// would not change anything substantially.
Nope, but switching
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Marius Gedminas wrote:
BTW I've yet to see a firewall that blocks SSH. Am I lucky?
Yes. Blocking ssh is very common in larger companies in me experience.
An ssh server running on port 443 (HTTPS) can come in very handy. ssh -D
gives you a socks proxy,
My 2 cents:
I like svn over https. It works reliably, and is easy to use, and
externals work as expected, etcs.
So I'm +1 on allowing https access.
That said, svn+ssh tunnels svn over ssh, and if you are in a place
where ssh doesn't work, you need to find the network admit and punch
him in the
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
I'd like to report back on the progress that Bzr/Launchpad has made
addressing concerns we heard since I last brought up Canonical's
offer
to host the code and contribute
On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:34 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
- the web front end is ancient and not as good as other options
(Trac,
WebSVN)
+1 for having trac as a subversion browser.
In fact, see http://zope3.pov.lt/trac
The svn repository mirror used by that trac instance is updated with
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 14:41, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
Should we all just use that?
It's running trac 0.10. I'd love to see trac 0.11, which has
additional features that I miss every time I use a 0.10 trac instance,
such as the annotate view.
Also, I'd include the subversion location
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:04:47PM +0200, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 14:41, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
Should we all just use that?
(that being http://zope3.pov.lt/trac)
Sure, I don't mind. It sits behind an ADSL line with puny uplink (512
Kbit/s), but I don't think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.04.2009 17:22 Uhr, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:04:47PM +0200, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 14:41, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
Should we all just use that?
(that being http://zope3.pov.lt/trac)
Marius Gedminas wrote:
The story may be different for Windows users (as usual).
+0.5 for alternatively accepting authenticated https access (I'm not the
admin, so it doesn't cost me, but I'm also not going to use it)
BTW I've yet to see a firewall that blocks SSH. Am I lucky?
Yup.
In
Andreas Jung wrote:
Sure, I don't mind. It sits behind an ADSL line with puny uplink (512
Kbit/s), but I don't think that will be a problem.
Nothing against your generous offer but I think that trac belongs as
a central service on the central repository server.
+1, although if we were to
Previously Marius Gedminas wrote:
BTW I've yet to see a firewall that blocks SSH. Am I lucky?
Yes. Blocking ssh is very common in larger companies in me experience.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is
Hey All,
I got bitten by the current zope subversion setup at PyCon so thought
I'd mail the appropriate groups about it. If this has been covered
elsewhere and I've missed anything, please just point me in the right
direction...
So, svn.zope.org causes me pain at the moment:
- it uses the
On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
For me, the ideal would be simply https for everything and using http
basic auth for access with more people having access to update the
passwd file and maybe Trac or WebSVN for a nice web interface.
I absolutely *hate* using https to access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02.04.2009 20:39 Uhr, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
For me, the ideal would be simply https for everything and using http
basic auth for access with more people having access to update the
passwd file and
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
For me, the ideal would be simply https for everything and using http
basic auth for access with more people having access to update the
passwd file and maybe Trac or WebSVN for a nice web interface.
I absolutely
On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
This involves storing a key in plane text in my home directory,
which is terrible.
How do you not have the same thing with ssh?
ssh keys are pass-phrase protected and ssh-agent allows me to enter
the pass phrase once in a session.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
For me, the ideal would be simply https for everything and using http
basic auth for access with more people having access to update the
passwd file and maybe Trac or WebSVN for a nice web interface.
I absolutely *hate*
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 19:44 +0100:
...
I prefer using password-protected (as opposed to key-protected) https.
What do other people prefer?
I am fine with the ssh access.
True, the initial setup was a bit difficult (the key program
did not like the . in d.maurer -- but forgot to tell
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I would not like to enter my password every time I call svn.
If this can be arranged, I am content.
It can, and with svn 1.6 it's even secure :-)
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Jacob Holm wrote at 2009-4-2 20:44 +0200:
...
For write access I completely agree. For read-only unauthenticated
access it would be nice to be able to use http(s). It may be possible to
have it all at the same time.
I have been told that there are mirrors of the Zope SVN repository
providing
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I have been told that there are mirrors of the Zope SVN repository
providing read access via http.
Shame none of them is advertised anywhere...
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
So, svn.zope.org causes me pain at the moment:
- it uses the bizarre svn or svn+ssh protocols, which I find annoying
(ports blocked on routers, can't check with a browser, etc)
+10 for continuing to support svn+ssh, it's the
On Apr 2, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Hey All,
...
The other option would be to follow Python and move to Mercurial, but
that has the same problems for me as with Bzr (no decent gui tools,
less
mature, etc) although it's a toolset I'll have to learn at some point
anyway...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
I'd like to report back on the progress that Bzr/Launchpad has made
addressing concerns we heard since I last brought up Canonical's offer
to host the code and contribute commercial support for the transition.
When I do
38 matches
Mail list logo
