The first release candidate of Subversion 1.1.0 is ready and available. From the release notes:
Subversion 1.1 can best be summarized as: (1) a new non-database repository back-end, and (2) a whole slew of client-side improvements.
Subversion 1.1.0 coming up
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m not quite sure here, but don’t recall Subversion support in Eclipse.
Does anybody know if this is planned. And if it is, when it will show?
Well, the adoption of FSFS as an alternative to BDB should appease a lot of people who hated the BDB backend. For me it doesn’t matter since what I do could be handled by RCS without much trouble.
That said, I wonder if I should change or not… My tree isn’t that huge, so space saving and the speedups from FSFS probably won’t matter.
re: eclipse support
you are looking for subclipse, it’s a plugin
http://subclipse.tigris.org/
haven’t tested it myself though
re: bdb stuff
there’s actually a discussion going on at the mailing list concerning the bdb license (first it was: re 1.1 rc release, then the subject was changed). You should be able to find them in the archives soon
I have been using subclipse for a while now, it still is not totally finished (update sync view still has some minor problems)
but it works quite well.
You can get it via live update from:
http://subclipse.tigris.org/update
Also you might have to copy the libjavahl dlls or symlink the libjavahl.so file to the main eclipse folder, since subclipse relies on native client libraries.
It’s one of the biggest improvements that I’ve ever had. Now I can switch computers and operating systems, without any worry about my code. I can work on the same code from Linux and Windows, which is great since I can keep testing and improving for cross-platform.
On Windows I use TortoiseSVN and on Linux it’s very easy to use the svn command line.
I recommend.
AFAICS the BDB requirement precluded the daemon from running on Windows, which is what most businesses use for servers. But I could be completely and totally wrong..
Damien
subversion/svn has definite growing pains. i’d wait for 2.0.x before I did anything serious with it.
meanwhile, if you have < 1000 files, bitkeeper is a great choice. or <= 2 developers, perforce. both are mature, robust, and have many integrations, perforce in particular.
> or <= 2 developers, perforc
mmm,
Perforce 2003.2 for Linux 2.4.0 Intel x86
It seems that I have to use a 2.4 kernel.
so I can’t run it onto a Debian/2.6.7 ?
Back top topic:
After few months they released the 1.0, well 1.1 is due `soon’.
Should not a VersionControl software something that changes not too often, apart for bugs and patches ?
Releasing a new repository back-end after few months is like saying: `Hey, we saw that the previous was not that good’.
We waited 1.0 for long time and now you are going to release 1.1 soon.
Maybe they got a lot of feedback from projects that used it.
Just some thoughts.
@ Damien:
You are completely and totally wrong 🙂
I’ve been running 3 SVN servers for about a year now, on Windows systems, and haven’t had any problem yet.
@ wishful thinking:
I really do believe you when you say you didn’t do anything serious with it, because you would talk differently if you had. What do you mean with “growing pains”? I think you just mean “growing”.
I have been watching the subversion project with great interest for around 2 years now and have started using it at home for my personal projects.
One feature I was very disappointed not have made it to 1.1 is the exclusive locking model as we are looking for a new rcs at work at this was one of the requirements.
If only the company I worked for had forked out a little money to help the development along in this area 😐
‘Releasing a new repository back-end after few months is like saying: `Hey, we saw that the previous was not that good’. ”
the old one is still there and everything is still api AND abi compatible. The new one is just added as a boon because of bdb licensing reasons
I also agree, the new backend does not mean the old one is bad, in fact it works really well.
But there are lots of people who come from CVS who really have mental problems using a DB as a backend, I think the optional file based backend will relieven them of those concerns.