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
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 relat
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 relatively recently.
I'm looking at this:
ht
On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Martijn Pieters wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53, Wichert Akkerman
>> 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 u
Martijn Pieters wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53, Wichert Akkerman 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 cor
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53, Wichert Akkerman 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 have any probl
Previously Martijn Pieters wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32, Chris Withers 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
> > http://thread.gmane.org/g
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:39, Chris Withers 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
errors' are not rando
Martijn Pieters wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32, Chris Withers 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
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.versio
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:32, Chris Withers 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
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/8734
2009/4/6 Chris Withers :
> 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
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 betw
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 pro
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 17:48, Marius Gedminas 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 then to https://
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 fi
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
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, et
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 f
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,
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 It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things
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 wer
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.
-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 wrote:
>>> Should we all just use that?
>
> (that being http://zope3.pov.lt/trac)
>
> Sure
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:04:47PM +0200, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 14:41, Jim Fulton 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 that will be
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 14:41, Jim Fulton 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 plugin, which in
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 updat
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 c
-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
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
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
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
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
providin
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
_
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 t
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 absolute
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.
Ji
-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
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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
