I think it would be more prudent for the subclipse to have two concurrent
releases. One that is bound with the 1.0.5 release and one that is bound
with the latest bleeding edge release. As I understand it the problems in
subclipse are mostly of a subclipse nature and not a subversion nature.
Therefore it makes sense to not keep updating the DLL. The subclipse plugin
itself needs to gain maturity so that it can be a viable replacement for the
CVS plugin and for that to happen I believe that development effort should
concentrate on subclipse itself.
Just one suggestion for subclipse. The update of deep nested directories
should be a background task in eclipse.
-- Robert
_____
From: Dan North [mailto:dan@tastapod.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 11:12
To: users@subclipse.tigris.org
Subject: Re: libdb42.dll missing
I would be fine with this if I wasn't being asked to update to an RC version
of subversion. I'm using 1.0.5 at the moment and as soon as 1.1 is released
I will upgrade to that. I'm usually happy to try bleeding edge builds, but
with something like source control I get a bit risk-averse :)
Is there any reason you guys are using 1.1rc2 for developing subclipse? Is
it very different from 1.0.5?
Cheers,
Dan
McClain Looney wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:05:42 +1000, Brock Janiczak
<mailto:brockj_eclipse@ihug.com.au> <brockj_eclipse@ihug.com.au> wrote:
Hi All,
I have figured out what is causing the missing libdb42.dll message. We
are loading the dlls in the wrong order. If you try to load a dll with
an unresolved dependency windows will look for it on your system path
(so if you have subversion installed, it works). I have checked in the
required changes to the jhl adapter. Things would be much easier if we
forced people to have svn installed and on the path.
as the packager, you have my vote for removing javahl-win32 fragment.
un/fortunately, as a non-win32 person, i don't feel in a position to
yank it out without the other win32 developers' votes.
cchabanois? pkorros?
Received on Sun Sep 5 19:16:10 2004