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.

Comments

Comparing the software

[superpulpsicle]

Does anyone have a good website to compare subversion, cvs, perforce, clearcase and other software of this type?

It runs on top of Apache?

[VE3MTM]

If I get this straight, Subversion runs on top of Apache. Isn't that a bit heavyweight for their purposes? It seems a bit odd to run a VCS on top of a webserver.

Apache/BSD is not bad idea

[veggiespam]

i assume the client libraries are apache/bsd licensed. if they were GPL, then SunOne/Forte, Visual Studio, C++ Builder, and other systems could not include plugins for Subversion. So, we'd be stuck with either propritary solutions like source safe and clear case, or stuck with CVS access via fork() as many applications do now.

If you're really annoyed, write tirgis and tell them GPL with LGPL client.

RCS can handle binary data since v5.7

[Anonymous Coward]

And CVS uses RCS as a back-end. So... what's the big deal with binary files?

Re:Now will SourceForge adopt it?

[peripatetic_bum]

The real question is: Will Linus adopt it?
I remember a hell of a flame war on the use of bitkeeper which has a license that says if you bitkeep to make a product to compete against bitkeeper, you cant use it (I thought that was fair), and it caused quite a ruckus in many camps.

There is a good summary of what happened here
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kerne l/0304 .2/0825.html