Comments on: Sub-version is not a misnomer

By: CJ

CJ — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:40:36 +0000

There’s not much to bile about SVN (even the bile on this post isn’t strong enough; I could easily put it down with few obvious arguments). But you will indeed have much more fun biling on M$ Visual Source(un)Safe, believe me!

By: Zarar Siddiqi

Zarar Siddiqi — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:10:11 +0000

Moving files with SVN kicks ass.

By: Bill Krahmer

Bill Krahmer — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:20:57 +0000

What’s wrong with installing Apache 2.x on a production machine? Was it not stable back then?

SVN is the best now.

By: bjorn

bjorn — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:53:53 +0000

It’s 2004. Subversion works perfect – and has good clients :) happy now?

By: Rasmus Lund

Rasmus Lund — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:48:36 +0000

I found it really easy to install Subversion stand-alone server. As I see it, the *ability* to integrate with Apache is just like the *ability* to use the Subversion-plugin with Eclipse. You go like: “Subversion *has the ability* to integrate with Apache – and I hate Apache – thus – I hate Subversion…”. I’t like saying: “Crap – there is a CVS-client for Windows, and I really hate Windows – thus I hate CVS…”. Where’s the logic mate??

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:07:23 +0000

Envy is bullshit!!! I was forced to work with it for some time – never again!!!

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:14:49 +0000

Anyone used Subversion for projects that contain just binary files?

Is there a check out system for that in SVN that works like the Edit/Commit process in CVS?

If not, how can working with binaries be accomplished using SVN?

thanks,

Terry

By: John Kwon

John Kwon — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:53:48 +0000

If you have ever used Envy for version control (alas with Smalltalk), you’ll think that EVERY version control system in the world was written by retarded underwear gnomes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:30:56 +0000

It seems that people who criticize Subversion in the orginal article and in this forum here have highly emotional “approach”.

A typical indication for this is to start with judgement and afterwards “finding” proofs for it (instead of presenting a analysis including pro’s and con’s and drawing conclusions). Coming along with logical breaks in these “proofs”, for example criticizing own wrong assumtions (e.g. ignoring the standalone server but complaing about the pretended dependecy on Apache 2).

It is also typical emotional to say: “I already hated Subversions before I took a look at it. Then I took a look at it, and I am right with hating it. And I found Persion Y who also hates it, so this also shows that I am right…” This also does not really demonstrate professionality. As manager, I would fire such developers, because of personality deficities.

Whatever the reason for these emotional point of view is. Maybe the new boy-friend of his ex is using Subversion, or whatever… ;-)

Markus.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:05:25 +0000

If even I am able to set up a subversion repository without any problems it probably means you are the one who is retarded :)

Anyway, I’ve used subversion for a while now and it is really good. I just wish the standalone version would allow better control over the repository access.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:26:24 +0000

subversion/apache-ssl is a secure way of accessing your source code repository from behind a firewall. i’ve been using it this way for a while and it provides a lot of flexibility. subversion handles the SCM. apache handles the secure flexible service providing.

i’m glad they decided to build over apache. it’ll be even better for open-source projects. people who cannot connect to a CVS repository will likely be able to use a subversion repository.

By: funkattack

funkattack — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:20:33 +0000

Thank you, thank you, thank you,
not only for all the bile that is so joyfull to read in your blog, but for the honor and self esteem reading them gives me back.
Long times I felt like a lazy and dumb bastard. I have that thing with complicated installation instructions, I mean longer than three liners. I didn’t know why I don’t like’em, was it my lazyness? Or even worse was it my dumbness, not understanding some alleged enormous benefit that whatever dingithinglily piece of software promises?
There alwas was the certain itch of fear, that I might be missing most interessting things that way.
Nowadays nothing itches me no more, I am absolutly confident my sort of lazyness and dumbness is a sign of smart character. Why bother with something, that can’t keep me interested for more than three lines?
In the case of subversion I was alwas shure that the project stinks, there is just no good reason for copying the user interface of cvs.
Biling over cvs never would come up to my mind, even though it is so counterintuitive. It’s just been around for too long and every day it’s arround I take it as a living sample of the open source community’s incompetence not to bring up anything better.
So why should I bother and install subversion, which is definitely more than a three liner. An article in the honorfull iX magazine (http://www.heise.de/ix/) this February got me close to doing so. Luckily reading the installation instructions kept me from it again.
And here comes your article, thank you thank you, for readjusting my sense of smell. I wont look at subversion for another year.
No itching!

By: Jon Tirsen

Jon Tirsen — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:39:19 +0000

“atomic commits exist in every single control system I’ve ever heard of”

Ohhhh, you should try out StarTeam. You’d be amazed on how crappy it is!!

I’d really like to hear a bile about StarTeam, that’d leave me rolling on the floor laughing.

By: Jon Tirsen

Jon Tirsen — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:54:58 +0000

“atomic commits exist in every single control system I’ve ever heard of”

Ohhhh, you should try out StarTeam. You’d be amazed on how crappy it is!!

I’d really like to hear a bile about StarTeam, that’d leave me rolling on the floor laughing.

By: Will Gayther

Will Gayther — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:10:40 +0000

Well, if “Version numbers are pretty meaningless on most open source projects”, why the hell wouldn’t you just start with a 1.0 to begin with? Oooh, right, because…you do think they’re meaningful, huh?

By: Sam Pullara

Sam Pullara — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:56:30 +0000

There is only one source control system worth paying for: Perforce. Every time I have to use CVS it is torture.

By: Sam Newman

Sam Newman — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:34:43 +0000

There is a simple reason why there has been no decent, mature, opensource replacement for CVS, and thats because its a very complex problem space. ClearCase is supposed to be fantastic, but has a steep learning curve and is expensive (most people I know in medium to large teams use it, but they have the benifit of dedicated SCM people). I’ve heard good things about Perforce but have yet to use it. CVS with the SmartCVS client will have to do for the moment.

By: Mr. Pin

Mr. Pin — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:03:13 +0000

Ha -ha-ha. Hani could not configure Sub-version!

By: Corby Page

Corby Page — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:29:33 +0000

I have been using Subversion for six months on a similarly-sized project, and it has rocked.

I am using the extremely capable TortoiseSVN client for my work.

Yes, Subversion is a marked improvement over CVS. It supports these really advanced features that CVS has not yet mastered… like removing a freaking directory!

Some of Hani’s stuff is good. But when he starts crapping all over really valuable projects just because he is short on blog material for the week, it feels extremely self-serving.

By: Mike Mason

Mike Mason — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:54:10 +0000

Subversion is actually very good — lots of people here seem to agree that Perforce is the SCM of choice, and there have been lots of times where a Subversion feature has worked just like Perforce, and given me a warm fuzzy feeling.

You don’t need Apache, just run the standalone server. Version 0.34 is pretty much there in terms of stability (as you’d know if you followed the dev list) and will be entering 1.0 beta in the next month or so. Why is the arbitrary “1.0″ tag required? Version numbers are pretty meaningless on most open source projects, you know that!