Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subversion 1.6 released.

subversion.tigris.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#21

Post by durin42 »

jhawk28 wrote: post #15

I wonder if the CTypes Python bindings will help out the DVCS clients such as Bazaar or Mercurial. Bazaar already has good client support for SVN. It would be nice if Mercurial would get first class support.

Not really. I've looked at the ctypes bindings (I've got a set of incomplete patches to them), and they lack diff and replay support, which makes them basically useless for building a client. Git uses the perl bindings, so I can't speak to the quality of those. Bazaar uses a library called subvertpy that they wrote when they got tired of the suck and pain that is the Python SWIG bindings for Subversion. I'm about to switch to using that for hgsubversion, since fixing up the ctypes bindings has proven to be nothing more than a monumental pain.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#22

Post by jrockway »

axod wrote: post #18
jrockway wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you un-"svn update" after you don't like its auto-merge? (Unless you never use svn update, you do branch and merge. You just don't have any control over how it works.)

I've never needed to do that. The auto-merge has never failed for me. Give me an example of when you "wouldn't like its auto-merge".

All the time? Sometimes I am working on Bar, and want to update Foo. Unfortuantely, someone changed Bar, and now I have to deal with that change right now no matter what. And, I don't get the opprotunity to decide if I want the change to Bar; svn just auto-merges the changes in. There is nothing I can do to stop that, and no way to revert the change once it's happened. (In git, you can roll-back to any committed state. In svn, you can't even commit if there is a conflict.)

Anyway, I am glad you like svn. But it is probably due to some reason other than svn's technical merits like, "at least it doesn't have all these Ruby fanbois." That is totally understandable, ignornat fanboi-ing is VERY off-putting. (To be fair, I started using Git loooong before it was popular. So I don't consider myself a fanboi.)

Also, you don't learn anything new by sticking with what you already know. Perhaps it is worth expanding your horizions. Maybe try creating a branch in svn and go from there -- you might like it.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#23

Post by axod »

jrockway wrote: post #22
axod wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never needed to do that. The auto-merge has never failed for me. Give me an example of when you "wouldn't like its auto-merge".

All the time? Sometimes I am working on Bar, and want to update Foo. Unfortuantely, someone changed Bar, and now I have to deal with that change right now no matter what. And, I don't get the opprotunity to decide if I want the change to Bar; svn just auto-merges the changes in. There is nothing I can do to stop that, and no way to revert the change once it's happened. (In git, you can roll-back to any committed stat…

For me, it's like trying to persuade me to use ReiserFS, rather than ext3. I just don't care unless it's performing badly.

Why can't you just "svn update Foo" ? Then you don't have to deal with the changes to Bar :/ I don't really see what the issue is. Are you often working on exactly the same files as other developers, and not co-ordinating what you're doing?

>> "Anyway, I am glad you like svn. But it is probably due to some reason other than svn's technical merits..."

I like it, because it solves my use case perfectly. I'm not quite sure you understand that.

I'm not one of these people that love technical solutions for the sake of being technical.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#24

Post by jrockway »

axod wrote: post #23
jrockway wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the time? Sometimes I am working on Bar, and want to update Foo. Unfortuantely, someone changed Bar, and now I have to deal with that change right now no matter what. And, I don't get the opprotunity to decide if I want the change to Bar; svn just auto-merges the changes in. There is nothing I can do to stop that, and no way to revert the change once it's happened. (In git, you can roll-back to any committed stat…

For me, it's like trying to persuade me to use ReiserFS, rather than ext3. I just don't care unless it's performing badly. Why can't you just "svn update Foo" ? Then you don't have to deal with the changes to Bar :/ I don't really see what the issue is. Are you often working on exactly the same files as other developers, and not co-ordinating what you're doing? >> "Anyway, I am glad you like svn. But it is probably d…

You also seem to be intentionally closed-minded, for the purpose of gaining karma on social news sites. I think that's sad, but I realize that it's your loss, not mine.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#25

Post by axod »

jrockway wrote: post #24
axod wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it's like trying to persuade me to use ReiserFS, rather than ext3. I just don't care unless it's performing badly. Why can't you just "svn update Foo" ? Then you don't have to deal with the changes to Bar :/ I don't really see what the issue is. Are you often working on exactly the same files as other developers, and not co-ordinating what you're doing? >> "Anyway, I am glad you like svn. But it is probably d…

You also seem to be intentionally closed-minded, for the purpose of gaining karma on social news sites. I think that's sad, but I realize that it's your loss, not mine.

I care not a jot about karma. What I do care about is ill informed people spouting rubbish.

You stated that anyone using subversion must not understand revision control. Which is an idiotic comment.

I detest this pompous high and mighty tools based attitude. Does anyone not using lisp not understand programming? Anyone not using ruby on rails not understand how to build webapps?

I'm actually very open minded. When I have problems with subversion, I'll likely try git if it fits my use case at the time. At the moment, it doesn't.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#26

Post by seanb »

axod wrote: post #19
seanb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree, but have been using git almost exclusively lately. The big draw for me is the ability to (easily) commit locally (and roll back those commits if I mess something up), then push commits to the "master" repository selectively. If SVN allowed for a similar workflow, it would satisfy my needs just fine. Of course, any distributed VCS would probably fit that description... I found mercurial to be nice as w…

Just install a local svn repository :/

An option perhaps, but "just install git" seems even easier.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#27

Post by jhawk28 »

durin42 wrote: post #21
jhawk28 wrote: post #15

I wonder if the CTypes Python bindings will help out the DVCS clients such as Bazaar or Mercurial. Bazaar already has good client support for SVN. It would be nice if Mercurial would get first class support.

Not really. I've looked at the ctypes bindings (I've got a set of incomplete patches to them), and they lack diff and replay support, which makes them basically useless for building a client. Git uses the perl bindings, so I can't speak to the quality of those. Bazaar uses a library called subvertpy that they wrote when they got tired of the suck and pain that is the Python SWIG bindings for Subversion. I'm about to…

That would be awesome. I prefer using Mercurial to Bazaar, but I really need the subversion client interface.

Re: Subversion 1.6 released.

#28

Post by jrockway »

axod wrote: post #25
jrockway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also seem to be intentionally closed-minded, for the purpose of gaining karma on social news sites. I think that's sad, but I realize that it's your loss, not mine.

I care not a jot about karma. What I do care about is ill informed people spouting rubbish. You stated that anyone using subversion must not understand revision control. Which is an idiotic comment. I detest this pompous high and mighty tools based attitude. Does anyone not using lisp not understand programming? Anyone not using ruby on rails not understand how to build webapps? I'm actually very open minded. When I…

You stated that anyone using subversion must not understand revision control. Which is an idiotic comment.

But you said above that you don't want to understand version control; you said you just want to use it. This does not disprove my statement.

Post reply on HN