Subversion is a mess : A Rant in E Minor
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
I've been using the version of SVN you describe for months without a problem. You could always use popsicle sticks.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I've been using the version of SVN you describe for months without a problem. You could always use popsicle sticks.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunCommand line or TortoiseSVN? AnkhSVN? Maybe it's Tortoise that is the problem.
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
Mel Padden wrote:
Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?)
Git is actually very simple. I've been using SVN for a few years and I can just barely work it (with help from TortoiseSVN & AnhkSVN), I learned Git at the beginning of the year and I have no issues with it. Mercurial is pretty much the same thing, but from my understanding it does fix the one quirk in Git that bugs me, the fact that you must tell it which files were changed (or add -a to your commit). We're actually in the process of moving from CVS to Mercurial at work.
-
Command line or TortoiseSVN? AnkhSVN? Maybe it's Tortoise that is the problem.
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
-
Command line or TortoiseSVN? AnkhSVN? Maybe it's Tortoise that is the problem.
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
TortoiseSVN 1.7.1, Build 22161 - 64 Bit, 2011/10/21 22:51:59 Subversion 1.7.1 I also have AnkhSVN installed for Visual Studio. It is Tortoise that removed the .SVN files and directories in favor of a database. It does make copying directories around harder
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
Is SVN the problem or is it the client you are using?
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
Mel Padden wrote:
I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse.
The problem is not SubVersion.... If your people do not want to learn SubVersion, they will not bother learning anything else. If you do not want to use VCS, you can just "export" instead of doing a check-out. M.
Watched code never compiles.
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
I've been using Subversion (not willingly) for a year and a half now, currently
svn, version 1.7.4 (r1295709)
compiled Mar 8 2012, 20:25:56(from Tortoise?) and, other than being the wrong tool for the job, it seems OK.
-
I've been using Subversion (not willingly) for a year and a half now, currently
svn, version 1.7.4 (r1295709)
compiled Mar 8 2012, 20:25:56(from Tortoise?) and, other than being the wrong tool for the job, it seems OK.
Seems like your sentiments are echoed. i shall investigate the combination of clients I'm using; I'm using a corporate SVN install, so perhaps the infra bods borked the initial SVN setup, or the client is out of sync or something.
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
Mel, I've been very happy with the (free) Standard Visual Subversion Server[^] and the free AnkhSVN Visual Studio Plugin[^]. They work just like what I'm used to at work (TFS) and the price is hard to beat. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
I've used Subversion for a few years and have been poked and prodded by it in the past. I've learned to be gentle with it and to avoid massive restructuring of the folders because I hate spending hours fixing tree conflicts, etc. I now have a fragile peace with SVN (via TortoiseSVN) and haven't had an issue for quite a while. It does the trick. I see no use converting to Git for internal enterprise development as it doesn't match the model.
-
Mel, I've been very happy with the (free) Standard Visual Subversion Server[^] and the free AnkhSVN Visual Studio Plugin[^]. They work just like what I'm used to at work (TFS) and the price is hard to beat. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
the price is hard to beat.
In my experience, free stuff isn't worth the price.
-
Mel Padden wrote:
I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse.
The problem is not SubVersion.... If your people do not want to learn SubVersion, they will not bother learning anything else. If you do not want to use VCS, you can just "export" instead of doing a check-out. M.
Watched code never compiles.
Some years ago (after overbearing massive resistances within the team) I've successfully changed the Version Control System from VSS to SVN. My conclusion is: Who don't want to use SVN (in this case the reason is: it's not Microsoft) does all to discredit the system. They work with local copies and branches in a way they would never do with TFS and cries that nothing will work in SVN. Maximilien is right: The best version control system is useless if inner resistances of some team members prevent them from learning.
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
Git.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
the price is hard to beat.
In my experience, free stuff isn't worth the price.
In my experience, free stuff is only free if your time has no value :)
____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
-
"Livin' on a Prayer" is in E minor... and that title is a fair description of some of the source control setups I've used.
+5 for referencing a rock classic. Used to play that in pubs, in the throes of my callow youth...
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
Count me among those who've been using Subversion 1.7.x for some time now, since not long after it came out, without any of the problems you've described here. In fact, use of 1.7 actually made many of our merges run smoother than was the case using 1.6 an previous. We also use TSVN and AnkhSVN for everyday developer style activities, and while Ankh still has some issues with regard to renaming, as mentioned by another poster, the only issues I've had with TSVN are mostly around how long it takes to update the status markers. I understand the reasons for that, but it's still a little annoying. Have you discussed your problems with the Subversion developers, or at least on the user mailing list?
Currently reading: "The Prince", by Nicolo Machiavelli
-
In my experience, free stuff is only free if your time has no value :)
____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
-
I used to like Subversion, I really did. But these days it seems to take commands and do what it elephanting well likes with them. Wilfully ignoring subdirectories, deleting files... it knows no end. The new version is painfully inadequate, and buggy to the point of criminality. I too was annoyed by the .svn folders and irked by developers who copied folders around because they didn't want to bother learning how to use the VCS, but removing them has made everything much, much worse. If this is what we get when an open-source project gets too big for its boots, then kill open source. Make them Pay, and deliver a working product. Our options now for version control system run thusly: VSS X| SVN :wtf: What happened to this once-fine product? Git: good but SVN-heads don't want to learn it (and why should they have to?) TFS: Expensive and slow Mercurial probably the best option but see points re: git. I had come to depend on SVN, as I suspect a lot of people have, as a no-nonsense product for a no-nonsense task, which should be taking up about 5% at most of my office time. I've just spent a full day digging through merges and re-adding folders that should never have been ignored. Dropping in files from the filesystem like a noob because SVN has no idea where they are. It makes an elephanting mockery of the whole process. I might just go back to using a freakin neanderthal filesystem-based backup process, until (insert major bank here) decide to approve the use of Mercurial/Git for internal projects. This is unholy. I am angry. [EDIT] I wish to point out that I realise I am treating a freely available product like a commercial app, but in my view, this new insanity really is too much. If they're going to change it, can't they do it right? Why persecute legions of people who have come to rely on it? Who wins?
I too dabbled in pacifism once.
I am interested in everyone's issues with VSS. I have been extremely happy with its simplicity since the mid 90's. I would like to hear some real technical feedback on the basis of your opinions. I am being serious here, can anyone articulate a real issue? I suppose it would have to be an issue that's limited only to VSS, that is, you cant say "A lack of support for atomic commits for multiple files" -- when that is a problem with nearly all source control systems. Interested in you professional opinions here... thanks. I am not a Microsoft Fan boi, I just prefer simple, un-obtrusive, easy to admin version control.
Where there's smoke, there's a Blue Screen of death.