- This topic has 13 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi,
I’m a myeclipse supporter. I have two licenses myself, and even bought one for my coworker.
It would be really cool if you had some builtin subversion support. It’s becoming pretty mainstream now that they finally got past 1.0. The current subclipse/tmate plugin offerings are “OK”, but still buggy. I especially see a lot of problems in regards to refresh and deleting files (can’t “revert” a file not added yet, for example). I really don’t have time to submit bug reports or patches, I usually just fall back on the command line.
If you could make something that was as good and stable as the builtin eclipse CVS support, I think it would be a big value add to myeclipse.
Thanks for MyEclipse, and I hope I see this implmented sometime soon.
Thanks,
Chad Woolley😀
Chad,
Historically core development features like these are really out of the realm of what we do, especially with a main stream plugin like subclipse currently in active development. But if there are enough requests we can certainly look into doing something.@support-rkalla wrote:
Chad,
Historically core development features like these are really out of the realm of what we do, especially with a main stream plugin like subclipse currently in active development. But if there are enough requests we can certainly look into doing something.It may be active, but not fast enough for me :). I want something that works as good as the native Eclipse CVS support now! Waahhh!
Also, I don’t fully understand why synchronizations (svn up) take FOREVER in the subclipse plugin and only a second or two on the command line, even though there may not even be any updates. I’m sure it has to pull more data to do diffs or whatever, but its still really really slow.
Thanks for the response,
ChadWell actually Subclipse works fine. A bit tricky to install on non Windows boxes. It is less trouble in general when you have several developers to reduce the number of plugin’s to install. So Having SVN in Subclipse is more a nice to have than a strong requirement for me.
@star.be wrote:
Well actually Subclipse works fine. A bit tricky to install on non Windows boxes. It is less trouble in general when you have several developers to reduce the number of plugin’s to install. So Having SVN in Subclipse is more a nice to have than a strong requirement for me.
Maybe it’s the Linux version, that’s what I’m running. I find it’s slow, it often hangs, cancel doesn’t work, and it doesn’t handle some things well (like if you drag to move a file it got very confused). I often have to kill eclipse because Subclipse is hung. Also, it’s missing some of the nicer features of the CVS eclipse plugin (such as being able to compare a branch and the trunk in the repository view without checking them out).
I guess I considered part of the goal of MyEclipse was to take existing plugins that might not be up to snuff yet and integrate/improve them, but if subversion isn’t popular enough I can see how that wouldn’t be cost-effective.
Oh well, there’s always the command line.
— Chad
I guess I considered part of the goal of MyEclipse was to take existing plugins that might not be up to snuff yet and integrate/improve them, but if subversion isn’t popular enough I can see how that wouldn’t be cost-effective.
That is what we try and do when we can if the feature is heavily requested by our users, a lot of people have this misonception that what we do is grab something, quickly brush it up, throw it in and onto the next. 80% of our code base is developed in house and every time we have *ever* integrated an existing plugin we have committed to not only fixing it up, but extending it and enhancing it moving forward which means a full time a commitment to each and every feature we add. That is why we need to be selective about the process. Financially it doesn’t make sense for us to integrate subclipse right now and pay someone 100s of man hours to work on it while in parallel an entire team is doing the same, for free, and likely duplicating some of our efforts. This is of course at the cost of not getting as mnay bug fixes or new features into the future releases.
So at this point, it doesn’t make sense for us to do this, but it may later on down the road. Really depends on a lot of factors.
@support-rkalla wrote:
So at this point, it doesn’t make sense for us to do this, but it may later on down the road. Really depends on a lot of factors.
Makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful and prompt response.
— Chad
I would love to see built in subversion support. Integrating it into MyEclipse currently is a real pain until you get the hang of it 🙁
Installing subversive is surely a pain. It was supposedly integrated with Eclipse in 3.4, but you *still* have to manually hunt for 2 URLs, input them in the update manager, pick various plug-ins (beginners never understand which they must pick) and than pray that it all works. On top of that, I’ve heard reports that the latest subversive with SVNKit 1.2.0 doesn’t work on MyEclipse 7.0M2.
Just having a complete SVN available right after you have installed MyEclipse would surely be a HUGE benefit for a lot of users. Currently Eclipse offers out of the box CVS support and having that support there by default is an amazing feature. On the other hand, who still uses CVS? SVN seems to be the default now, and not having this as a default in Eclipse is a true turn down.
I think MyEclipse would not have to do a lot of development for this. Basically they just have to package it with MyEclipse in a version that’s compatible with it. I’m still now sure how a modern IDE like Eclipse can exist without out of the box SVN support.
henk,
The discrepency exists because the CVS support in Eclipse was clean-roomed and the SVN support has been done by two separate parties (Tigris and Polaris IIRC). You are right that Polaris donated the Subversive code base to the platform and that was suppose to be in Ganymede proper… my guess is that this is rectified in 3.5 and becomes a non-issue.
If we go integrated a SVN client now at this level, and then run head-first into anything 3.5 integrated, that will become a user/configuration nightmare. That’s why we’ve avoided this glaringly obvious pain point for so long… it’s suppose to have gone into the platform forever-ago.
I would love to see better subversion support. Existing plugins are in the category nice try. They just aren’t mature enough and I don’t expect that from volunteer effort. Subversive is well done but not profesional quality. I certainly see it as added value if myeclipse worked on it. You could certainly build on existing software. My main use case is merge support obviously. That would be everyone’s number one headache with subversion 😉
I agree with henk. who still uses CVS? it’s a dead repository. As long as I know..most of the CVS using community has moved on to Subversion and if not they are planing to or going to move to subversion in near future for sure.
Adding a support for the technology which is the future is always a good idea and a winner for IDE competition. If MyEclipse is not planning to in near future to add support for SubVersion..we might have to choose alternate IDEs since they have support for it. Personally, I prefer MyEclipse over any IDE but I can see lots of developers in my team argueing about how other IDEs are better in support for diff technologies. I can’t argue when with them when it comes to SVN.
I really feel bad that MyEclipse has no plans what so ever to support SVN.
