How to use Subversion with Eclipse

An anonymous reader writes "From the beginning, Eclipse included tight integration with the Concurrent Versions System (CVS) in order to provide access to change-management capabilities. Now, many projects -- notably those run by the Apache Software Foundation -- are using a different change-management system: Subversion. This article demonstrates how to add Subversion support to Eclipse and how to perform basic version-control activities from the IDE."

Comments

Eclipse 3.2 and Mac OS X/Linux

[Bob[Bob]]

Funnily enough I was setting this up yesterday... and I discovered for Eclipse 3.2 Tigris suggest using Subclipse 1.1.x as explained here. Also, for Mac OS X/Linux you need to first install JavaHL, as explained here.

Excellent article

[cerberusss]

I've been working with Subversion, especially from within Eclipse using the Subclipse plugin. I had earlier experience with the CVS plugin that comes with Eclipse. This is with Eclipse 3.1.1, Subclipse 3.0.1 and Subversion server version "SVN/1.1.4".

Some bad differences:

• Slow. While CVS isn't the fastest animal, I found some actions in Subversion even slower. And sometimes Subclipse just leaves you waiting up to tens of seconds when for example a conflict is detected. After posting on the excellent Subclipse mailing list, the problem was acknowledged. A few days later, a release was available through the Eclipse update screens which fixed this bug.
• When entering the Team Synchronize perspective, it happened once that although the "Incoming/Outgoing mode" was selected, only the incoming files were displayed. Switching to "Incoming Mode" and back again showed everything. Hmm -- smelly!
• Minor issue: when you have made a few changes and decide against it, you can right-click on the source and choose Replace With -> Latest from repository. Subclipse performs this, but Eclipse then asks something like "File changed on filesystem. Do you want to load the changed file into the editor?" Apparently, the integration isn't yet up-to-par.

Some differences I'm neutral about:

• In the Synchronization perspective, sometimes you review changes in a file and decide they should be left out. Funny thing is, you can't right-click and select 'override and update'. It's greyed out for whatever reason.
• When the repository contains a newer version, you often synchronize the file and choose 'override and commit' with the CVS plugin. With Subclipse, you synchronize, choose 'Mark as merged' and then commit.
• Whenever an error occurs (for example, you tried to commit a file which had conflicts), a little exclamation mark is displayed at the left side of the filename. You always need to right-click and choose 'Mark resolved' before you can continue.
• Directories are versioned as well. In the Synchronization perspective, you can't update a whole directory. Well, you can, but it doesn't disappear from the file list. You'll have to select the files as well as the directory.
• I was used to the CVS plugin. When I wanted to start working on a project that was kept in CVS, I used to do menu File -> New -> Project, then choose CVS > Checkout project from CVS. The Subclipse plugin doesn't put itself in the New Projects wizard. Instead, go to the SVN Repository Exploring perspective, seek out your project its directory, right-click on it and choose Check out. You'll then get the option Check out as a project using the New Project wizard.

Good things:

• You can just press 'Cancel' in whatever action -- Subclipse rolls back since Subversion uses transactions. With Eclipse's CVS plugin, this isn't possible (and with good reason or so I've heard).
• About Subversion in general: when you check in, you basically create a new revision. It's the collection of files that has a version, not each individual file. The complete commit has one commit comment -- not each file.
• About Subversion in general: symbolic links, permissions, everything's nicely stored.

Re:Why in the IDE?

[hhlost]

I think it's much easier to edit code in a text editor then manually invoke the compiler and linker.

Personally, I think it's much easier to use pen and paper, an abacus and a filing cabinet.

Re:Subversion is not necessarily for Unix develope

[Just Some Guy]

For Unix I'd rather stick with CVS since SVN does not support following symbolic links because Windows(!) does not support symbolic links.

But it does support versioning the symlink itself (per the FAQ). Do you really want to store multiple copies of the symlink's source?

Re:Why in the IDE?

[Great_Jehovah]

The main advantage of integration with the IDE is that when you rename or move source files, it can automatically do the drudge work for you with svn. This is hugely important in Eclipse because all the fancy refactoring tools make the source tree much more plastic but it's all for naught if you have to go in after the fact and figure out which files got renamed to what manually.

Re:Why in the IDE?

[Daniel_Staal]

That's an entirely seperate argument. If you are using an IDE, it makes sense that the IDE can handle all common coding tasks, one of which is source-control.

Whether or not an IDE is a good idea is a seperate question all together. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe they only are for some people or situations. But if you are making one, it makes sense to make a good one.

Re:Subversion Sucks.

[Taevin]

Right, because taking the opinion of clueless idiots is always a good idea.

He said he read the entire manual and still couldn't figure out the most basic of SVN operations? His reading comprehension skills must be so handicapped that I find it difficult to believe he managed to get a wordpress blog running. I downloaded, compiled, and installed subversion without reading the manual and then skimmed over the documentation to get it running.

The error: permission denied on db/transactions/1-1.txn. And I can't figure out what it means. What permissions? Who's trying to access that? Why is it necessary? Why doesn't my user have those permissions when I attributed everything correctly?

Can't figure out what it means? WTF? Either this guy is from Windows where you don't deal with permissions because you're always an administrator or he has absolutely no business setting up a server of any kind. I got that same error the first time I setup subversion through the Apache module. I immediately said "Oops, forgot to give the apache user write access to that directory, duh." So sorry that every program doesn't have a 2,000 page section in its manual covering the basics of its host operating system.

I've never used either of those repository management programs he speaks of since they are completely unnecessary given how easy it is to manage an FSFS based Subversion repository, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they'll work perfectly for every other user.

Creating a Subversion repository is an incredibly simple task. The svnadmin utility, provided with Subversion, has a subcommand for doing just that. To create a new repository, just run: $ svnadmin create /path/to/repos

No, it's not that simple, and no it's not 'just run'. Where should the repositories reside? What are some normal defaults for this sort of situation? What do the authors recommend? What should the permissions of the repository paths be? What should the permissions of the repository root folder be? It's never 'just run'.

Actually it is that simple. That command has never failed to create a repository when I used it, and it was a simple matter of double checking the permissions afterwards and are of course easily fixed with a recursive chmod. What are some normal defaults? What do the authors recommend? I thought you read the manual asshole: The shockingly labeled "Choosing a Repository Layout" section. What should the permissions be? Umm, maybe the most restrictive ones necessary for operation, like they are or should be for every program in existence. If you're running it through the Apache module and want to commit changes and therefore write to the filesystem, perhaps the user Apache runs as needs, oh I don't know, write permissions.

Subversion has worked flawlessly and exactly according to the published documentation in every single instance I have used it. The only problems that have ever occurred in relation to it were of my own mistakes (not giving the apache user access, etc.). Given that I find it very hard to believe that someone able to comprehend a revision control system could fail so completely at such a simple task, I find it more likely that this asshole just hates Subversion because it's different and is/becoming more popular than his system of choice.

At least I'll know not to believe a single word from Sebastien Reid if I'm ever linked to his "tech blog" again.