Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Note, that svn 1.2 is not included into cygwin install on windows
>>yet, so it is inconvenient to manually install 1.2. I wonder if it is
>>possible to include required native svn libs with Subclipse install?
>
> I am not sure what you mean. We supply the native Windows binaries with
> Subclipse. Are you suggesting we ship native Cygwin versions? On the
> surface, that seems doubtful. It is worth nothing that Subversion itself
> releases Win32 binaries, including javaHL, and those are what we actually
> release with Subclipse. If someone wants to volunteer to maintain a Cygwin
> version it is a possibility. Does Eclipse offer anything at runtime that
> would let a Cygwin-specific feature exist? In other words, does it
> identify itself uniquely from Windows (win32 and x86)? If not, I do not
> see how we could provide it.
Release notes are saying that svn client 1.2 is required. So, it is
unclear if Subclipse installation has dependency on any external svn
client install or it is self-sufficient.
I thought that javahl included into Subclipse using whathever svn
client installed locally (in my case it is one from cygwin install which
is unrelated to Eclipse). It seems that I was wrong...
>> By the way, is there are any plans to provide feature for Syncronize
>>view similar to "Commit Sets" mode in in CVS sync?
>
> Someone, I think Panagiotis, expressed an interest. It is nothing I plan
> to work on in the short term. These are my reasons:
>
> 1) As much as is possible, I think we need to focus on getting to a 1.0
> release.
>
> 2) While I think maintaining compatability with Eclipse 3.1 is important,
> other than that, I do not think it makes a lot of sense to be spending time
> on Eclipse 3.1 specific features before it has reached at least the Release
> Candidate phase. If we had reached 1.0 status ourselves 4-5 months ago, I
> would probably feel differently.
>
> 3) I would rather not see us do anything that breaks Eclipse 3.0
> compatability in the near term. We have been able to add a couple of
> Eclipse 3.1-specific features without breaking Eclipse 3.0, so that may
> well be the case here as well. I do think we should support Eclipse 3.0
> for a while though. At least until the IBM/Rational tools are all migrated
> to Eclipse 3.1.
>
> For me, the main issue is #1. Hopefully, Panagiotis or someone else is
> working on some of these nice Eclipse 3.1 features. I am sure we will have
> them someday.
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.
For the record, this "Commit Sets" feature is one of the big things
that makes eclipse CVS support so different form other IDE.
regards,
Eugene
Received on Tue May 24 11:07:47 2005