On Sep 14, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> Plus, if you don't at least HAVE Subclipse, Eclipse won't register its
> refactorings with SVN. Thus, TortoiseSVN won't know a file move is
> actually a move, as opposed to a delete and a new (separate) file.
> That sort of defeats the purpose of using SVN over CVS, so the IDE
> integration is definitely a huge decision point. I use Subclipse
> extensively on a daily basis and each release brings in new bugs
> (including the last 3). I've learned to put up with quite a lot, and
> give up quite a lot (like the Eclipse commit sets) for SVN.
I guess we're moving into the realm of OT, but it may be relevant
too. But doesn't SVN natively use commit sets? I thought Eclipse
commit sets were a workaround for CVS's limitations and that there
really isn't a need for them in Subclipse.
> Also, moving repositories is NOT a convenient time to migrate to other
> software. Never break two things at once. :). I join the -1'rs for
> SVN, but could probably provide assistance in the form of server
> access or whatnot for a CVS repository, if required.
I don't see moving to a new server and to SVN being that big a deal,
but then again, since I'm not a committer, it doesn't matter a ton to
me. At this point, I'd really just like to be reliably connect to
some repository with Cayenne code in it.
> And awk is cool.
Looks like I'm being ganged up on. Time for plan B.
-- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 10:03:51 EDT