Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Subversion 1.0 Released

Posted by timothy on from the milestone dept.

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.

7 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not bad, but... by Anonymovs+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Subversion overall looks very nice. However, I do have some issues with it. Namely, it's released under the Apache/BSD license, which I'm not completely comfortable with.

    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.

  2. Re:What's with that? by after · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:What's with that? by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Don't suppose there's a Visual Studio plugin yet by jdunn14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. No optimizer in MSVC Standard Edition by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $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.

  6. Re:What's with that? by notsoclever · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And I suppose plain text files are decimal? Or maybe they're analog?

    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
  7. Re:Why Subversion Kicks Ass by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Further, even if the Arch tools were to disappear tomorrow, I could still retrieve the contents of my files using tar, patch and similar tools -- something I can't do with a tool that backends into BerkeleyDB.
    I was concerned about that when I started using Subversion. They supply a command, "svn dump", that outputs a flat text file version of a repository in an easily parsed format. I have a cron job to do this periodically for backup. If a was more paranoid, I'd set it up to do it after every commit.

    However, I've been using Subversion for quite a while, and it has never yet lost any of my data.

    but I don't trust my source to big binary blobs managed by the same library that's destroyed my RPM database so many times).
    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.

    arguably superior core design
    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.)