Slashdot Mirror
Subversion 1.0 Released
Phil John writes "Subversion 1.0 has finally been released. The people who maintain CVS have given us a viable replacement for our de-facto (and aged) versioning system. If you're new to Subversion its feature list looks like fixes for everything that is wrong in CVS, renaming, directory structure and metadata version tracking, file deletion, proper management of binary files and it's pretty portable to boot." According to the download page, binaries may take a few days to appear.
What a strange statement. Do you use XFree86? OpenSSH? There's any amount of such software out there under similar licences, and if the original BSD TCP/IP stack hadn't been under such a licence, it's doubtful the internet would be as interoperable as it is today, and if X hadn't been under the MIT licence, we'd be stuck with a bunch of incompatible proprietary windowing systems.
It won't. Subversion is a traditional, centralized system. Linus wants a distributed system, which Bitkeeper is.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Are you being serious?
It's very common to work on a piece of software that might rely on some third party library that you don't have source for. In order to get your source tree to compile you're pretty much going to need a copy of that library. Seems pretty convenient to keep it around in CVS.
But besides that, you might have some binary data file that needs to be part of your distribution, i.e. PDF documentation.
A "binary" does not ultimately mean an executable. A binary, as you probobly know, can be any binary file sutch as a PNG image or compressed text file. The defenition is monolithic, so I can already see a mod disagreeing with me.
I think he meant: if you're a programmer that plans on using Subversion, surely you can compile the damn thing yourself, rather than waiting for somebody else to do it for you.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
Apparently Subversion 1.0 doesn't support "sharing", where the same file appears in more than one place in the source tree. That's a lack. Microsoft SourceSafe does that, and it helps avoid those annoying situations that result in long include paths.
How about a web interface to sudo for adding user accounts?
/dev/null, whatever. But still, my paranoia's inflamed. By giving them a user my system's at least recognizing their existence, and that makes me uncomfortable because I am uncertain my knowledge of UNIX is complete enough I've locked off all the possible manners in which they could take advantage of that.
You're suggesting I put up a web accessible chmod root script just so someone can run a version control system?
I can see that for some people's situations, using the unix account system would be very attractive. However, not everyones'. I, specifically, have been needing to set up a version control server of some sort. I will probably wind up doing so on a personal machine. It is concievable at some point I could give other persons access to this server. If so, I do not want anyone who has access to this CVS server to have any sort of other abilities on my system. Yes, yes, disable FTP, set shell to
From a security perspective, every moving part you add to a system is a chance for something to go wrong. A versioning system implementing its own internal security system adds a hell of a lot of moving parts, but they're all well contained off in userland, there's some vague notion of a sandbox there. A versioning system using the OS user system is adding a very small number of moving parts but those moving parts are in a much more dangerous area...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Or am I wrong? Yes, I know VS is an unholy horror, but some of us are stuck with it for work. I use Jalindi igloo to interface with CVS, and would likely use subversion (heard nothing but good things about it) if I had 2 things:
1) the VS.NET source control plugin
2) a good way to "upgrade" an old CVS repository
I'm guessing #2 is supported, but #1?
$1000 for one seat? What version are you getting and where are you buying it?
Microsoft Visual C++ Professional Edition, which seems to be the cheapest version with an optimizer in the Microsoft price list.
You can get Visual C++, which is all you need to compile most open source stuff, for $100 so
The version of MSVC available to the general public "for $100 or so" is Microsoft Visual C++ Standard Edition, which contains no optimizer. I've read that the performance of its generated code is so poor that one might as well use an interpreted language instead of MSVC Standard for new apps or run the UNIX version of an existing app in the Cygwin API translation layer rather than try to compile the Windows version in MSVC Standard.
Also, the BIOS's API has been totally open (and basically unchanged) ever since the original IBM PC.
There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
All files are binary. What most people mean when they say "binary file" is "non-plaintext."
There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
However, I've been using Subversion for quite a while, and it has never yet lost any of my data.
I have had occasional RPM database problems, but as far as I can tell they have been due to RPM problems, not due to Berkeley DB problems. In my experience Berkeley DB is fairly robust.In principle, there is no reason why Subversion can't use your favorite relational database as the back end. The Subversion developers chose Berkeley DB as the first back end implementation, but there may be others in the future.
That's rather vague. What's better about Arch's core design? (I'm not trying to knock Arch; I just don't know much about it.)Because that's only one minor rev behind. There probably aren't that many big changes in 1.0 anyway, so 0.37 will probably be good enough for the days (or weeks? no idea how hard-working the subversion maintainer is...) while waiting for 1.0...