+1
In my ignorance, I think removing the need to worry about the comamdn
line and putting the focus compeltely on the complete stack can only
help the complete stack efforts, which I prefer both practically and
estheticly. :)
JK
On 12/2/05, Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> > I am thinking that we should remove the CommandLine adapter as an option
> > in Subclipse. There are just several key features that are not
> > implemented reliably and I think users would be much better off using
> > JavaSVN, even if that means they have to setup a local svnserve instance
> > to access local repositories.
>
> Given that both JavaHL and JavaSVN exist for Subclipse and provide
> superior performance and usability, supressesing it from casual usage
> doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea. Rather than completing
> ripping it out, how about not allowing it as a choice unless a
> configuration toggle has been set (e.g. some System property)?
>
> > I am not talking about dropping it from svnClientAdapter. The CommandLine
> > is still an excellent choice for svnAnt users as it implements the
> > features an Ant user would need fairly well.
>
> Exactly -- it'll always be seriously useful to SvnAnt.
>
> > I just do not think it makes sense to offer an option in Subclipse that we
> > know does not work completely especially when there are good alternatives.
>
> Not by default, no -- +1.
>
> > It is not that difficult to obtain JavaHL anymore and the only barrier to
> > using JavaSVN is file:// access for which there is a workaround.
> ...
> --
>
> Daniel Rall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subclipse.tigris.org
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 3 08:26:49 2005