When it comes to readily available, free source control, I don't think you can do better than Subversion at the moment. I'm not necessarily advocating Subversion; there are plenty of other great source control systems out there -- but few can match the ubiquity and relative simplicity of Subversion. Beyond that, source control is source control, as long as you're not using Visual SourceSafe. And did I mention that Subversion is ... free?
Allow me to illustrate how straightforward it is to get a small Subversion server and client going on Windows. It'll take all of 30 minutes, tops, I promise. And that's assuming you read slowly.
The first thing we'll do is download the latest Subversion Windows binary installer. At the time of writing, that's 1.46. I recommend overriding the default install path and going with something shorter:
c:\svn\
Note that the installer adds c:\svn\bin to your path, so you can launch a command prompt and start working with it immediately. Let's create our first source repository, which is effectively a system path.
svnadmin create "c:\svn\repository"
Within that newly created folder, uncomment the following lines in the conf/svnserve.conf file by removing the pound character from the start of each line:
anon-access = none auth-access = write password-db = passwd
Next, add some users to the conf/passwd file. You can uncomment the default harry and sally users to play with, or add your own:
harry = harryssecret sally = sallyssecret
As of Subversion 1.4, you can easily install Subversion as a Windows service, so it's always available. Just issue the following command:
sc create svnserver binpath= "c:\svn\bin\svnserve.exe --service -r c:\svn\repository" displayname= "Subversion" depend= Tcpip start= auto
It's set to auto-start so it will start up automatically when the server is rebooted, but it's not running yet. Let's fix that:
net start svnserver
Note that the service is running under the Local System account. Normally, this is OK, but if you plan to implement any Subversion hook scripts later, you may want to switch the service identity to an Administrator account with more permissions. This is easy enough to do through the traditional Windows services GUI.
Now let's verify that things are working locally by adding a root-level folder in source control for our new project, aptly named myproject.
set SVN_EDITOR=c:\windows\system32\notepad.exe svn mkdir svn://localhost/myproject
It's a little weird when running locally on the server, as Subversion will pop up a copy of Notepad with a place for us to enter commit comments. Every good programmer always comments their source control actions, right?
Enter whatever comment you like, then save and close Notepad. You'll be prompted for credentials at this point; ignore the prompt for Administrator credentials and press enter. Use the credentials you set up earlier in the conf/passwd file. If everything goes to plan, you should be rewarded with a "committed revision 1" message.
svn mkdir svn://localhost/myproject Authentication realm: <svn://localhost:3690> Password for 'Administrator': [enter] Authentication realm: <svn://localhost:3690> Username: sally Password for 'sally': ************ Committed revision 1.
Congratulations! You just checked your first change into source control!
We specified svn:// as the prefix to our source control path, which means we're using the native Subversion protocol. The Subversion protocol operates on TCP port 3690, so be sure to poke an appropriate hole in your server's firewall, otherwise clients won't be able to connect.
Now that the server's good to go, let's turn our attention to the client. Most people use TortoiseSVN to interact with Subversion. Download the latest 32-bit or 64-bit Windows client (1.4.8.12137 as of this writing) and install it. The installer will tell you to reboot, but you don't have to.
Now create a project folder somewhere on your drive. I used c:\myproject. Tortoise isn't a program so much as a shell extension. To interact with it, you right click in Explorer. Once you've created the project folder, right click in it and select "SVN Checkout..."
Type svn://servername/myproject/ for the repository URL and click OK.
Tortoise now associates the c:\myproject folder with the svn://servername/myproject path in source control. Anything you do on your local filesystem path (well, most things-- there are some edge conditions that can get weird) can be checked back in to source control.
There's a standard convention in Subversion to start with the "TTB folders" at the root of any project:
Because Subversion uses regular directory copies for branching and tagging (see Chapter 4, Branching and Merging), the Subversion community recommends that you choose a repository location for each project root -- the "top-most" directory which contains data related to that project -- and then create three subdirectories beneath that root: trunk, meaning the directory under which the main project development occurs; branches, which is a directory in which to create various named branches of the main development line; tags, which is a collection of tree snapshots that are created, and perhaps destroyed, but never changed.
Of course, none of this means your developers will actually understand branching and merging, but as responsible Subversion users, let's dutifully add the TTB folders to our project. Note that we can batch up as many changes as we want and check them all in atomically as one unit. Once we're done, right click the folder and select "SVN Commit..."
In the commit dialog, indicate that yes, we do want to check in these files, and we always enter a checkin comment-- right? right?
You'll have to enter your server credentials here, but Tortoise will offer to conveniently cache them for you. Once the commit completes, note that the files show up in the shell with source control icon overlays:
And now we're done. Well, almost. There are a few settings in Tortoise you need to pay special attention to. Right click and select "TortoiseSVN, Settings".
Unfortunately, since Tortoise is a shell extension, setting changes may mean you need to reboot. You can try terminating and restarting explorer.exe, but I've had mixed results with that.
And with that, we're done. You've successfully set up a Subversion server and client. A modern client-server source control system inside 30 minutes -- not bad at all. As usual, this is only intended as the gentlest of introductions; I encourage you to check out the excellent Subversion documentation for more depth.
I find Subversion to be an excellent, modern source control system. Any minor deficiencies it has (and there are a few, to be clear) are more than made up by its ubiquity, relative simplicity, and robust community support. In the interests of equal time, however, I should mention that some influential developers -- most notably Linus Torvalds -- hate Subversion and view it as an actual evil. There's an emerging class of distributed revision control that could eventually supercede existing all the centralized source control systems like Subversion, Vault, Team System, and Perforce.
I'm skeptical. I've met precious few developers that really understood the versioning concepts in the simple centralized source control model. I have only the vaguest of hopes that these developers will be able to wrap their brains around the vastly more complicated and powerful model of distributed source control. It took fifteen years for centralized source control usage to become mainstream, so a little patience is always advisable.
I believe the distributed vs centralized source control system debate all revolves around the working environment that the developers use. The various features of distributed source control systems that "are great" that have been mentioned -- like the ability to have multiple repositories for test vs development vs each person, etc, that's not the providence of a distributed source control system, it's a feature of a good source control system with good branching support. I do that in Perforce all the time -- development vs test vs release, with occasional labeling.
I believe that developers like Linus and other Linux developers operate in a more disconnected, more distributed environment than, well, anyone has in the past. A single repository doesn't make any sense for them, which, well of course means that every source control system that existed in the past doesn't work for them. Like all good software developers, the went off to write their own tool.
The one feature that they really get is the ability to run disconnected from a server and still commit, which is nice, but not always required for all developers.
However, I worry that, for projects that don't actually need a distributed system, like say, a "group of people in a single office working on software", I worry that a distributed source control system would just be a excuse for people to follow bad team development patterns. Sure, they'd all have change control for their own checkins, but I rue when "merge day" appears and everyone breaks each other's code.
I'd also add that a centralized source repository makes it easy to meet other business (not necessarily development-centric) requirements -- single point for backups, long term tracking of code, configuration control, etc etc.
I use Perforce at work. I like it. I have seen continual additions of features in the 3 years I've been using it, I've had excellent support, and the only time I would think of using anything else is if I had no money and multiple developers, at which point I'd probably use Subversion.
ALex on April 6, 2008 2:42 AMThe fact that you think dvc systems are somehow _more_ complicated than the original centralized model amusingly proves your own point, but not how you intended.
The real reason we'll be stuck with subversion for years to come is that most mediocre developers wont take the time to learn new tools and new ways of doing things, and therefore will never grok distributed version control.
Codemonkeys ftw, unfortunately.
dude on April 6, 2008 2:52 AMHI, with this notepad popup when you commit something - did you try to specify -m flag with a message eg svn commit -m "test"? atleast, on unix it takes care of that.
alexei on April 6, 2008 2:56 AM"When it comes to readily available, free source control, I don't think you can do better than Subversion at the moment."
Except by using the much superior Git.
Nicholas Wright on April 6, 2008 2:56 AMI did a post about setting up SVN without a server that you'll find helpful.
http://www.sleepoverrated.com/2008/04/06/GuerillaDevelopmentSetupSourceControlIn60Seconds.aspx
I recommend people use VisualSVN Server too it gives you https easily
Scott Cowan on April 6, 2008 3:21 AMhow about http://bazaar-vcs.org/?
svn was single-central-repo model source control
I'd prefer something more distributed
chakrit on April 6, 2008 3:40 AMI really like SVN plugin for Visual Studio integration by PushOK software. It's cheaper than VisualSVN ($29.99) and its a MSSCCI provider, so it uses the same source control window that comes with VS. Plus all MSSCCI aware applications will automatically just work.
http://www.pushok.com/soft_svn.php
Ben L on April 6, 2008 3:43 AMI rue when "merge day" appears and everyone breaks each other's code.
I watched the rest of Linus' talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 . Git *enforces* per-developer personality-driven p2p branches. This is great for ego-driven people like Linus who have a lot of power, fame, and personality. That makes sense. :)
I'm really intrigued by Linus' claim that merging becomes extraordinarily simple in Git. He's absolutely right about that-- the problem with branches isn't the branching, it's the merging.
Still, I'm unclear why merging would be inherently "easy", except for trivial diffs where there's no overlap in the lines that were edited. It seems the tooling could be improved on the SVN side to make this happen, if that's all he's referring to.
The social aspects of distributed source control are pretty compelling, though. It "works more like people work" is arguably true.
Jeff Atwood on April 6, 2008 3:44 AMI've tried to introduce Subversion at work, to replace Visual Source Safe. Our problem is however that we deal with Microsoft Reporting Services reports. A change to a report will usually restructure the whole file, shuffling bits and pieces around and creating total pain when merging. Not to mention that reports can get quite big (5000-6000 lines) and it annoys me greatly that subversion inserts it's ' 1.2' merge tags into them.
Exclusive locks are, I think, the better option in these cases. Is there anything I could do to subversion to make my life easier when dealing with these cases?
Ilici on April 6, 2008 4:20 AMI guess it all depends on what type of software you are trying to control. At a previous employer our code was mostly binary files. Although IT hated it we had little trouble with VSS. And SVN was a nightmare. Just that one experience soured my opinion towards "free" open-source software almost irrepairably.
PaulG. on April 6, 2008 4:39 AMOne nice thing about Git is that it does not leave .svn turds in all you directories.
Jeff Hawkins on April 6, 2008 4:43 AMSetting up svn in Apache is more complicated, especially under Windows. Still a great article! :)
Alex on April 6, 2008 5:02 AMHave you tried any distributed source control? I've recently switched from Subversion to Mercurial, and I'm very happy about the change.
The most important reason was the ability to clone the repository to my laptop, do some checkins there (without network access, on a plain, train, etc.) and resync with just one command when I'm back home. Distributed model seems cool even for a single developer :)
Also I don't like the way Subversion deals with branches and tags (i.e. by "cheap copy"). It simply doesn't work well for me, e.g. if one checkouts a repository with many tagged and branched versions, the workspace becomes much bigger than it should be. To avoid it, one needs to selectively checkout parts of the repository, I find it quite annoying.
Has anyone tried any of the Visual Studio.net plugins for Subversion?
Tim Almond on April 6, 2008 5:10 AM"One nice thing about Git is that it does not leave .svn turds in all you directories."
That's a good point - I've really gotten used to (in linux) typing rm -rf `find . -type d -name .svn` to clean out a chunk of code so it's ready to share.
Is there an easy way to do the same on the windows command line?
(That aside, thanks for the tutorial. I'm a big fan of svn in general, and that looks very useful.)
John Fiala on April 6, 2008 5:14 AM"I've met precious few developers that really understood the versioning concepts in the simple centralized source control model. "
Probably a lot of them VS.Microsoft devs? Brought up with Visual BASIC and SourceSafe. I understand why they wouldn't understand.
Diego on April 6, 2008 5:18 AM@Tim Almond
I use AnkSVN. It works great as a simple indicator of changed files within the IDE, but it seems bit clunky to actually use beyond the Diff and Add commands, IMHO.
I stick to TortoiseSVN for all other needs.
Jibbers42 on April 6, 2008 5:19 AMSorry if I seem to not understand something, but if you're going to use TortoiseSVN anyway, why not simply right-click on a folder and select "TortoiseSVN-Create Repository Here..."? I have done this multiple times, and have had no issues whatsoever.
XTremeEd on April 6, 2008 5:20 AMLocal System account is actually not a limited account. It has EXTREMLY high access to your local machine, but no access across the network.
Martin Liesn on April 6, 2008 5:24 AMSetting up svn in Apache is more complicated,
What does that get us? Some kind of web UI? Use of port 80?
clone the repository to my laptop, do some checkins there (without network access, on a plain, train, etc.) and resync with just one command when I'm back home.
What is the difference between what you describe, and working traditionally offline, then checking in when you get back into the office? If a "checkin" occurs on your local machine, and nobody else in the world knows about it.. did it really happen? Maybe I'm not understanding the distinction here. I still need to watch the rest of Linus Torvalds' presentation on this topic ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 )
Also I don't like the way Subversion deals with branches and tags
True, that part is a little ghetto-- you shouldn't be able to check a change into a "tag", but you can. The tag is sort of an illusion-cum-convention in Subversion; it's really a branch.
There is no perf penalty for creating hundreds of branches, though. They're only ultra-lightweight pointers until a change occurs under that branch.
Has anyone tried any of the Visual Studio.net plugins for Subversion?
No, I haven't. But there are two that I know of:
http://ankhsvn.open.collab.net/
http://www.visualsvn.com/
This is sort of a religious issue. Some developers believe source control should *never* be done inside the IDE, and I've started to see their point after dealing with the many, many bugs in the Team Explorer Visual Studio integration point of Team System.
Jeff Atwood on April 6, 2008 5:24 AM@Tim:
We looked into SVN plugins when we moved to SubVersion last year, and after trying a few we found VisualSVN (http://www.visualsvn.com/) to be the clear winner - VERY nice integration with Solution Explorer, and context menus to quickly find out a current file's history, or diff between two versions, etc.
It may be a little pricey for some at $49 a seat, but I definitely think it's worth the money. Hope that helps :o)
Andrew on April 6, 2008 5:29 AMclone the repository to my laptop, do some checkins there (without network access, on a plain, train, etc.) and resync with just one command when I'm back home.
What is the difference between what you describe, and working traditionally offline, then checking in when you get back into the office? If a "checkin" occurs on your local machine, and nobody else in the world knows about it.. did it really happen?
The difference is that you can keep a trace of the different checkins you did and you can go back when you want on your local repository. And then you can checkin to the main repository in the end.
Christophe Thiriot on April 6, 2008 5:43 AM Setting up svn in Apache is more complicated,
What does that get us? Some kind of web UI? Use of port 80?
Well, it can get you per-directory permissions, a web UI (to browse at least) and a few other things. I've got it setup on our Linux server, and it hosts to (mostly) Windows clients.
Ankh is nice, but somehow it feels rather clunky. I stick to Tortoise, or the command line for anything substantial. On Linux, I use either kdesvn or the command line.
I'd still like to switch to a distributed VCS if only for my own convenience, but too many people don't even grok basic branching and tagging... It'd be torture on them.
shash on April 6, 2008 5:45 AMhttp://svn1clicksetup.tigris.org/ - 1clicksetup, all i need for my svn happiness, server+client
pragmatig on April 6, 2008 6:00 AM What is the difference between what you describe, and working traditionally offline,
then checking in when you get back into the office?
I think this comes down to your philosophy if when to commit your code. Personally I like to make fairly small, incremental changes. I find that this helps when you make a mistake and need to back-track and, more importantly, when you need to merge into another branch.
With subversion you can't really do this without having your own local repository in addition to the central one. This gets messy.
Stephen Darlington on April 6, 2008 6:32 AMGreat tutorial !
could you do the same tutorial for installing and configuring trac on windows...
Jacques PYRAT on April 6, 2008 6:32 AMWhat does that get us? Some kind of web UI? Use of port 80?
Many organisations don't allow to open any ports except for the standard 80, 443, etc.
And screw web UI, we've got Trac for that :)
@Nicholas Wright: If you *want* it centralized, SVN is the best you can find. There are other dozen open source SCM software but they're all distributed.
@John Fiala: "svn export" is what you need.
Nicolas on April 6, 2008 6:39 AMhttp://www.visualsvn.com/server/ - simple setup for svn + apache and it's sweet
Damian on April 6, 2008 6:43 AM@Ilici: use exclusive locks, *or* find a tool that would merge them correctly.
Nicolas on April 6, 2008 6:43 AMWe've used Subversion for nearly four years and are on the whole very happy with it (~16 developers, plus QA, plus other groups using it for non-source code files). The biggest limitation we've hit is the rather poor tooling related to merges, though it seems svn 1.5 will have considerable improvements here.
We found setting up the repository to use Apache as the server indispensable to permit browsing of checked in files. We don't use this as much for source code as for other documents (specs, certain test data, etc.). It makes for easy integration to wiki pages, for example, and also makes it easy to for people to "check out" (peruse) specific directories/files (e.g. spreadsheets, Word docs) without _checking them out_. If the repository purely serviced development needs we likely wouldn't leverage this as much, though I've found it useful to quickly look at code in branches/tagged versions that I don't have active in my workspace.
Most of our development is in Java and we make use of the Subclipse Eclipse plug-in, though I personally just prefer to handle svn tasks outside the IDE. We also have used Ankh for our VStudio/C++ work and it seemed to work reasonably well.
Although we don't have a distributed development team, an advantage I can imagine to distributed version control, where needed, is actual revision support locally. If I were doing substantive development work without more or less constant access to the repository I would want something more than the file system and the IDE's "local history" feature for revision control. This is a key difference I see between just "working offline" and having revision control support locally. Linus pitches this as one of the chief requirements a distributed revision control system is meant to address.
Clearly the needs of a large and largely uncontrolled distributed project are quite different than the needs of traditionally managed teams ("uncontrolled" in the sense that anyone can join and start tinkering, even if official versions go back through some approval process). Linus claims that until he used BitKeeper he didn't even believe that revision control was necessary or useful, which I find quite revealing either about how he likes to work or the type of work he's done or both.
I always thought that "SYSTEM" is the *most* powerful account...
Mantas on April 6, 2008 6:44 AMI agree, http://svn1clicksetup.tigris.org/ is a great way to get started with SVN.
Alternatives for a Windows subversion-server:
* http://www.assembla.com/ Web hosted workspace with SVN, wiki (TRAC), chat, and much more (free for personal use)
* http://buildix.thoughtworks.com/ Live-cd or ubuntu-install with SVN, project management, Cruise Control for continuous integration and TRAC as a wiki and bug-tracker
As clients I recommend TortoiseSVN or the well done subclipse plugin for Eclipse (http://subclipse.tigris.org/).
Setting up SVN in Apache is more complicated,
What does that get us? Some kind of web UI? Use of port 80?
Yes, with the apache integration you are able to browse your repository with a web interface. FishEye (http://www.atlassian.com/software/fisheye/) is another great (but commercial) web UI for CVS and SVN. TRAC (as mentioned above) also has a integrated repository browser.
Florian Potschka on April 6, 2008 6:44 AMA lot of Svn users are moving to Git. I haven't tried it myself, but I thought I'd mention it, since this is the first blog posting I've read in a long time promoting the old hotness ;-)
by the way, is it just me or does your CAPTCHA always display the word "orange"?
Mantas on April 6, 2008 6:46 AMJeff, I agree with you about distributed source control that it is not easy to see the difference with centralized source control. I tried Mercurial for some time and had the same issues.
Actually, this if often a misunderstanding of what a source control system is. I think all programmers will agree with me that source control system allows:
- to work on a common source code ;
- to keep an history of the changes ;
- to back up your work.
The order I choose is intentionnal, this is the way people understand source control. First I can share with others, then I save history, and then I feel safe because my code base lives in a secured server.
With distributed source control, the goal is primarily to keep an history of the changes. Sharing the code is secondary. Backing it up is not even a feature.
The trick is that history is not the source control feature that is the most used. Just compare the number of update/commits on the last revision with the number of updates on older revision. Mainly, working with a source control is just updating on the morning and commiting before leaving. Browsing through history is not a daily activity.
That is why it is so confusing to switch to distributed source control. With distributed source control, history is the main thing. They considered this feature so important that they allow you to browse your history while being offline. You can share with others later.
There is some advantage to that. First, this is much harder to break the build. You don't have to push untested code or quick and dirty fix "just to save them" because you can save the history locally, do all the testing another day, and finally merge the whole history back with others.
Merge are easier too. With SubVersion, when a conflict occurs, you MUST resolve it before commiting your changes. But you may not understand the conflict and you really really don't have time to fix that right now. Because distributed source control keeps a whole repository locally, merging is not mandatory when a conflict occurs. You can keep the two versions and choose to resolve the conflict later. Or even ask the programmer that introduced the conflict to fix it.
That being said, I do think that all these software got the problem wrong. What I really want is my computer to keep an history of all the change I do, silently, without having to choose whenever I need an history point.
SubVersion or Mercurial both think that I am smart enough to know when I need to save my changes. They are wrong. I am dumb, an idiot. When I write a function, deletes it, quit my editor, and then want my function back, I am an idiot. An idiot in need of a really smart software to keep track of my all my changes.
(Sorry for the long post and any english mistakes.)
Vincent on April 6, 2008 6:48 AMWell just in time.. I very recently adopted Subversion for our project. It was just the right choice for our team size(about 3 :)).. Even though the way it manages some aspect of source control differenlty, it was sure very easy to install and work with in Windows. The way in which it shows the status of files in windows explorer through icon overlay is a nice littel useful feature.
Manoj on April 6, 2008 6:48 AMI also use VisualSVN Server. It's free and lets you set up a repository that's slightly different than what described here.
1) It uses Apache on Windows, and automatically creates an SSL (self-signed) certificate for you, so you can run it over HTTPS. (By doing it the way described in this article, you have no encryption -- everything is out in the open)
2) It stores the password in hashes, not plaintext, by using the Apache htpasswd authentication mechanisms.
3) It uses SVN authz files, which allow you have _granular_ control over a user's permissions for each directory inside each repository. And it provides the ability to control this in the GUI.
It has a great graphical interface, too. It's an MMC snapin, so it really makes it feel like it's a honest-to-goodness Windows service.
And did I mention that it's free? :)
Subversion is a great utility and surprisingly simple as well on Unix/Linux. Highly recommended!
Cheers.
Patrick on April 6, 2008 6:52 AM"If a "checkin" occurs on your local machine, and nobody else in the world knows about it.. did it really happen?"
Well, that's the point. You can hack your feature locally, even use git to transfer between different machines, and the upstream does only need to know your complete feature patch, not the history to there.
Conversely it is also useful to review the history when offline. Granted, truly offline places are getting scarce.
And I indeed don't want every developer to wrap its head around distributed version control right now. Fortunately the git people seemingly are integrating a CVS server so you can offer boths models at the same time.
Andreas Krey on April 6, 2008 6:55 AMBro - all this echo and no mention of Visual SVN server?
http://www.visualsvn.com/server/
Matt on April 6, 2008 6:58 AMGreat timing Jeff thank you very much. Our software project (final year uni) is underway and our supervisor asked if we needed any tools installed on our drive. I brought up Subversion. The rest of my team have no idea what source control is. I have never used source control before, although I've done some reading. I figure it's a good time to get practising with real life tools for when we finally graduate and enter the work force.
Source control has not been mentioned or taught in any of our classes, or even recommended in our project assignment. It's thanks to reading this blog many articles ago I leart of the greatness of SC.
Cheers again.
`Josh on April 6, 2008 7:14 AMFor all Eclipse users try this plugin: Subclipse
I've been using TortoiseSVN, too, but Subclispe integrates seamlessly into the IDE, which is pretty nice.
Another fan of PushOK here - I've used Ankh before that and seen VisualSvn, and IMHO the PushOK software really beats them because of the MSSCCI integration. In English, that means you can check in a new project and not worry that it is also going to check in the dll's and pdb's and so on.
The only thing that I've noticed that PushOK will do (on a multi-file check-in on a multi-project solution) is commit each project to a separate revision number. If you check in using Tortoise from the solution root, you get it all in one revision number.
PushOk also supply a piece of software to monitor file changes if e.g. you use Tortoise to update files. It is designed to fix the mismatch between MS Locked-check-out development and SVN's unlocked, everyone checks-out files (then potential merges on commit). It is a little flaky, however... but this has proven an issue with Ankh and VisualSvn too.
Nij
Nij on April 6, 2008 7:33 AMJeff, there's an easier way to get SVN running and it gives you an integrated Trac instance as a bonus: download the free Trac/SVN JumpBox here-
http://www.jumpbox.com/app/trac
It sets up in under a minute. You can use it without registering. And the other benefit is it's a self-contained, portable artifact that you can leave behind with a client when you finish a project.
sean
Sean Tierney on April 6, 2008 7:35 AMI just wanted to mention that those spaces after the equal signs in the sc command for creating the Windows service are REQUIRED. Kind of a weird looking command, if you ask me; guess it has to do with how it parses input from the command line.
I remember I wasted a good 20 minutes on that one the first time I was installing Subversion a few years ago.
Nicholas Piasecki on April 6, 2008 7:36 AMI've used subversion for years - I have the server on a linux box running behind apache. Advantages of running behind Apache?
1) As another said, it's easy to set up permissions per-repository, or to have multiple access groups for a repositiory. For me this isn't the main reason (though of course I do serve the svn repos password protected over ssh) for using Apache.
2) This is my main reason - I can access my repositories from any computer with web access, so reduces dramatically any need to carry files around on a key drive.
Don't install crap into the system drive root.
fudge on April 6, 2008 7:54 AM"If a "checkin" occurs on your local machine, and nobody else in the world knows about it.. did it really happen?"
From what I got from Linus's video, there's a lot more to the "offline in an airplane" scenario. You can have for example, a local feature being tested for two weeks in your own little test bed/testing department, then when its ready, merge it to the "main" repository. You'll be able to say, we have this feature and we have been tweaking (local committing) and testing it solidly for two weeks, etc etc. There's some more distributed SCM advantages explained there, such as having the test department having their own repository, expanding your trust sphere when merging by reducing your trusted merge vectors (linux kernel dev talk), merging is more importanting than branching, etc. Provocative ideas.
I doubt the human factor, but it sounds very technically enticing.
Linus's intense hatred towards centralized SCM (and not specifically Subversion, I hope) is In My Opinion (IMO), the view that it is slowing the software development process progress.
promoting the old hotness ;-)
Yeah, Subversion is the old "black" for me, ever since the 1.0.x days. Very dependable. Backups are totally easy (svnadmin dump repository onefile and you are done) and easy to understand. Also TortoiseSVN really is a great visual client. I always set up my Windows based SVN servers via Apache 2.x, because typing svn:// in emails just gets weird looks. I don't know how to install those fancy HTML interfaces, though. Seems I'll need to check out my options again.
I'm moving towards git, myself. I have a number of personal projects on it. The recent news that Ruby on Rails is moving to git from Subversion, as well as git public mirror repositories of GNU projects is also encouraging. The unofficial windows port, msysgit is usable if you like the command-line. Plus it comes with git-svn, a tool that bridges the gap between a Subversion server and git client, so you don't have to change your server infrastructure (?) right away.
Groking merging history is still difficult for me. Luckily there are some visual tools. For example (javascript required):
http://repo.or.cz/git-browser/by-commit.html?r=git.git
Still, git feels a little wobbly on the Windows platform (core.autocrlf :-( ), so I'm keeping my Subversion around for a little while longer.
piyo on April 6, 2008 7:57 AMAnother advantage of using Apache is that you can configure it to use Windows Authentication (or LDAP), rather than maintaining separate user name and password lists.
Kevin Dente on April 6, 2008 7:58 AMVisualSVN is worth the money, sits on top of tortoise so you have source control in and out of the IDE.
There is also a free VisualSVN server for windows which will setup SVN w/Apache and provide a GUI management tool. It also handles using windows/active directory accounts for logins.
Michael C. Neel on April 6, 2008 8:07 AMWHAT?! Recommending starting with Subversion, in 2008?! WHAT WHAT WHAT?!!!
Even for my extremely simple needs (no merging or splitting, just a straight line of modifications), Git has been vastly easier than SVN. It is much better at handling deleted and new files, and it is much better at realizing when files have been renamed or moved, even when they've also been modified greatly. SVN whimpers and cries from these things.
If you've only used CVS/SVN all your life, maybe sticking with it could be a good idea (for now). But if you're just starting out, it would be wiser IMO to go with something more modern. Why take on outdated baggage if you don't have too?
James Justin Harrell on April 6, 2008 8:12 AMA few comments:
* You set up the standard svnserve daemon. This is great for just your machine, but should not be used for multiple users. I use svnserve for my projects at home, but I prefer to use either svn+ssh or http under Apache. Of course, this makes it much more difficult to setup under Windows since Windows does not include ssh (and all clients need it) and Apache can be tricky to setup under Windows. This is one place where both Mac and Linux beats Windows. Linux and the Mac comes standard with Apache, ssh, and Subversion. Nothing to download. Nothing to install.
* Many sites put branching under their project instead of the root of the server. This just makes more sense, and it is something that is mentioned in the official Subversion book. For example: svn://svnserver/FooProj/trunk instead of svn://svnserver/trunk/FooProj.
* Developers really like the way Subversion branches because branches are visible and it is easy to compare one version from another. Perforce also uses the same method for branching. At first, I was very leery of that. In all of the other version control systems I used, branches were internal to the file. You checked out the file and specified the branch you want. However, developers (especially ones that never used version control) like the visible branching system better.
* Tags (Labels) are a problems with Subversion because, as you mentioned, someone could checkout a tag and make modifications. I have a checkin hook that does some nice security functions. It is similar to the one that comes with Subversion, but mine also allows you to create groups, make sure attributes are set on particular files, and prevents people from messing up tags. You can create a tag, but you can't checkout the code off a tag and check it back in.
* One good thing about Tags and Subversion: Tags are not needed as they are on most version control systems. Subversion doesn't version files, it versions the entire source tree. Every checkin you do modifies the entire source tree. You talk about build 1238 which is the 1,238th revision of the source tree. That means you don't need to label every build. You only need to label releases.
* Seeing you set your editor to Notepad has made you lose a great deal of respect in my eyes. No developer should ever use Notepad for any purpose whatsoever. There are many excellent free line editors out there that don't munge your files.
* Why use Apache? Because Apache can be setup as secure, you can use Port 80 which is normally allowed through firewalls, and Apache has a better security system than svnserve. I usually setup my Subversion server to use Apache. You can even use SSL certificates (https) which allows you to do work without setting up a VPN.
* I am not a fan of "Git" because it doesn't do several things I consider important in source control. It is popular because the Linux team uses it. However, the Linux team does things very differently from most development organizations. What Git really allows is you to turn your checkout into another repository. For example, I do a checkout from the Git repository, then I can modify the code and do checkins and checkouts on my local machine. I can use branches, etc. When I am done, I check in my final changes back into the main Git repository. Even better, I could actually allow other people to do checkins and checkouts from my repository. So, I can checkout from the main GIT repository, then setup a GIT server on my system and allow my team to use the GIT repository on my system. Once we are finished, I can check everything back into the main GIT repository. Very neat trick. You can use SVK which is a Subversion add on that does a similar trick.
* I recommend that you take a look at Perforce. It is a commercial source control system, but you can use it for free for personal projects since you're allowed two users and five clients. (Users can have multiple clients which are just views into the repository). It is easier to setup than Subversion on Windows, and comes with its own built in GUI. In fact, two GUIs. One is p4win which is a Windows only GUI. The other is p4v which is a standard GUI that works across all versions of Perforce (Unix, Linux, Mac, and Windows).
* Yes, there are many commercial systems out there, but the advantage of open source version control is quite simple: I don't have any licensing issues. I don't have to track who has what license, I don't need a license key, and I don't have to get some bureaucrat in accounting to approve a new license whenever our department gets another developer. Plus, it is easy to justify the "expense" when it costs the company nothing to use.
David W. on April 6, 2008 8:15 AMWe use Trac with our SVN server, so management occasionally uses the log for themselves and for generating activity reports for clients. Since a few developers never seem to want to detail their changes, we use a pre-commit hook to reject commits without comments. The hook requires grep.exe from the GnuWin32 project. Blog formatting may make this look ugly, but just toss this into pre-commit.bat in the "hooks" directory of your repository (edit paths accordingly):
@echo off
rem Add path to Subversion executable
set path=%path%;c:\Program Files\Subversion\bin
rem Add path to grep.exe
set path=%path%;C:\Program Files\GnuWin32\bin
SVNLOOK.exe log -t "%2" "%1" | grep.exe "[a-zA-Z0-9]" nul || exit 1
exit 0
Ralph on April 6, 2008 8:34 AMTo integrate SVN with Visual Studio, I use something like this, which is completely free: http://garrys-brain.blogspot.com/2006/11/visual-studio-2005-and-tortoisesvn.html
It actually integrates with TortoiseSVN, not SVN itself. But it works well enough for me.
For VS2003, which is what I use most, I set up a bunch of "External Tools" commands that point to TortoiseSvn. I have one for "Diff", "Log", "Update", Commit", and probably others. Then I just add them to the toolbar. You can even add the matching TortoiseSVN icons to the buttons if you want.
In a nutshell, no need to buy anything to integreate SVN into Visual Studio - it's super easy.
Joe on April 6, 2008 8:46 AMYou should try mercurial one day.
X on April 6, 2008 8:48 AM+1 on visualSVN, it absolutely rocks. Not having your SCC available inside the IDE , is like having custard cremes without the custard.
Aside #1 - there is a fully integrated installer for Apache+SVN on the VisualSVN site.
Aside #2 - I've got a 500GB Synology NAS box, with the SVN client installed on it, its perfect, requires no PC and just sits on your network serving away. Ideal for small teams that want a self contained SCC box. I detail the SVN setup on my blog, here
http://runtothehills.org/rob/archives/25
although i did that well over a year ago, so the NAS box firmware may have changed (though i'm still getting comments that everything is ok.)
Cheers!
Rob
For source control on my personal project (as in, I'm the only one who accesses the repository), I've found Git to blow SVN away (for my purposes). The main reason, is because it is distributed, I don't have to set up a repository on my local machine. I love how easy branching is. But like I said, this is only my experience - I have no idea how SCMs or DSCMs scale up.
Bernard on April 6, 2008 9:00 AMJust to reiterate the previous comment, *please* correct the blog post, as Local System is effectively root == can do anything locally. Local *Service* (yes, the names are unfortunately very similar) is a very restricted account.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms677973(VS.85).aspx
One advantage of running under the LocalSystem account is that the service has complete unrestricted access to local resources. This is also the disadvantage of LocalSystem because a LocalSystem service can do things that would bring down the entire system.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684188(VS.85).aspx
[LocalService] has minimum privileges on the local computer and presents anonymous credentials on the network.
James Manning on April 6, 2008 9:10 AMSVK (http://svk.bestpractical.com) is a good free utility for SVN for distributed teams or individuals. Allows individuals or branch offices to host their own mirror of the SVN repository. Works really well for branch offices because it really reduces the bandwidth used for otherwise redundant bits transfered by multiple users. Also provides a built-in distributed backup. :)
Allan N on April 6, 2008 9:13 AMDoes anyone know of a svn plugin (like ankh) that works in sql server 2005 (or 2008)? I have heard that ankh works in the bi tools but I'm specifically hoping to find something that works in the sql server management studio.
Tim Costello on April 6, 2008 9:34 AM@Tim
I second the recommendation for VisualSVN. I couldn't even get Ankh to work, but have been using VisualSVN for months and am very happy with it. Plus it leverages Tortoise so you don't have to learn a completely new UI for the same things.
Craig K. on April 6, 2008 9:36 AM"I'm skeptical. I've met precious few developers that really understood the versioning concepts in the simple centralized source control model."
That speaks a lot to the kind of people you choose to work with. The concept of working with someone who doesn't understand an appreciate distributed version control systems is just... wow. (And I'm not an old grey-beard or MIT Ph. D, I'm a kid a couple years out of a Java School)
Brett on April 6, 2008 9:39 AM@craig
Are you using VisualSVN in SQL (Management Studio) or in Visual Studio?
I've been using Subversion for a couple of years on an ASP.NET 2.0 project. I do not host the server myself, however, although it is easy to do. I use www.cvsdude.com (I am not affiliated with this company) and it is awesome. I'm automatically backed up off-site and I can manage user permissions, modules, etc. through a nice web interface. There's also a nice web view of all of the repositories for doing diffs, history, etc. I'll gladly pay a monthly fee to avoid any potential headaches with running my own server...
Robert on April 6, 2008 9:50 AMHas Git support for windows/Cygwin improved any? I've considered trying it for personal projects since everyone has had so many good things to say about it's branch/merge/tracking model.
But since I still work in windows land and afaik Git support for it is still crap, I've been looking more towards Mercurial for my DVCS needs, though I haven't started on a new project recently so haven't properly implemented one on my systems "properly" yet, though hg is on my laptop waiting for use ;).
Patrick Sulliva on April 6, 2008 9:57 AMFor poeople who want a place to put some personal code I can recommend assembla.com. They allow 500MB of free subversion hosting, which is the most I have seen of any free svn hosting service. They also have a Trac integration which is nice.
Torkel on April 6, 2008 10:22 AMI (and my team) switched from CVS to SVN about three years ago. Now I'm considering switching to either git or Mercurial. Anybody just starting to use SVN now is well behind the curve.
The cool thing about a distributed code control system is that it has all the capabilities of a centralized system, PLUS the ability to do commits and branches and history without talking to the server. Sure, projects like the Linux kernel depend on it since they're inherently decentralized, but even centralized projects can benefit from being able to work without contacting the server.
Of course, I'm strongly in the "commit each conceptual change" school of thought, rather than the "commit each day's work" school of thought. It's important to me to see the steps along the way, and to be able to undo those steps individually. I use the commit history constantly, as well as the annotate/blame facility.
Also, Subversion's merge capabilities are painful to work with, while git and mercurial are designed to make merging easy. It's great that Subversion made branching easy, but it's nearly useless when merging a branch back to the trunk is such a pain. And even reverting a change is more painful in Subversion than it really should be.
Jeff, you may be interested in these links:
A guy who'd earlier explained why a href="http://ww2.samhart.com/node/47"all distributed version control systems suck/a switches from Subversion to Mercurial: http://ww2.samhart.com/node/49
Happenings in the version control system world (cvs, svn, mercurial/hg, bzr, git, as of March 1 2008): http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2008/03/01/happenings-in-the-vcs-world/
rfunk on April 6, 2008 10:38 AMAfter working with subversion for awhile now, I understand exactly why Linus has that opinion... I've come to the conclusion that subversion may sometimes be worse than no source control.
Brian Knoblauch on April 6, 2008 10:42 AMI set up Subversion on Windows 2003 about a year ago. I also had a Fedora VM (in VMWare Server) running Subversion on the same machine. I tested both from a client computer running Tortoise. The Fedora version ran faster. It was disgusting how much slower SVN was on Windows compared to Linux. Small commits were about the same speed, but large checkouts and updates were much slower on Windows. Another developer ended up discovering the same thing in his testing.
I don't know if this is an intrinsic problem with Windows (doubt it), or a problem with the SVN binaries for Windows (prolly). We ended up running SVN out of a VM.
There are two remote backup strategies that can be used with this scenario (that we considered). First, one can simply back up the entire VM to the remote backup device. The second strategy is to use NFS or an SMB share in the VM to backup just the SVN repository directories in the VM to the remote backup device. The nice thing about the first method is that it is very easy to stand-up an SVN server when an emergency strikes, or just to stand up a backup when needed. VMs are so easy to use anymore, and VMWare Server is free. You can even download a very light-weight Linux/Subversion "appliance" VM image from VMWare. Some food for thought when setting up SVN.
Oh, and I loved using Subversion. I have used VSS (oh my god), Vault and CVS, and Subversion is better than all of them. I am back in CVS land now, which is also a very good repository.
Joe on April 6, 2008 11:00 AMSubversion is a great tool. If a server setup is what you are looking for then running it atop a linux box will do higher justice. For windows there's Virtual SVN for server setup http://www.visualsvn.com/download.html
OpenSource Rocks!
Ajo Paul on April 6, 2008 11:09 AMThank for the great post. Its a great help!!! Love the blog.
VX
VelkyMX on April 6, 2008 11:20 AMSVN really screwed up tags. They should be mnemonics for revisions, like they were in CVS, or like the magic revision name "HEAD" is. So instead of:
svn diff --summarize $REPO/tags/some_random_tag $REPO/trunk
You could do:
svn diff --summarize -r some_random_tag $REPO/trunk
It appear a small difference, but it is conceptually much cleaner. You also wouldn't be able to accidentally tag just part of trunk, which is possible now with the copy cop-out.
Meh.
Rich on April 6, 2008 11:27 AMI forgot to mention a big reason I'm considering switching from Subversion to a distributed system. Often one of us will embark on a set of changes that will break things until done and tested. The right way to do this would be to start a branch, but as I mentioned before, merging is painful in Subversion. It's certainly scary enough that the rest of my team doesn't want to touch it.
So one of two things happens: either they go ahead and commit as they go, breaking things for everyone else, or they don't commit anything until they're finished, so there's no history of what they're doing.
With a distributed system, branching and merging would be trivially easy, and everyone could make their private changes locally, then push up to the shared server when they think everything is good. And no history is lost.
rfunk on April 6, 2008 11:29 AMWith respect, this seems years too late. ;) http://svn1clicksetup.tigris.org/ solved this in September of 2005. Not to mention VisualSVN Server.
Scott Hanselman on April 6, 2008 11:30 AMI've actually spoken with SVN developer Brian Fitzpatrick, and he said that SVN will indeed be getting distributed features similar to “the Mercurial model.”
Learning DRCSs is easy and as simple as watching a few Google Tech Talks (Google being a SVN user themselves with Google Code):
http://humani.st/learning-distributed-revision-control-systems/
Distributed revision control is simple. It's just a repository of non-distributed repositories. "Push" and "pull" are essentially the only two new commands to merge between repositories. Everything else is the same as SVN (of course this is a wild simplification).
Luke Hoersten on April 6, 2008 11:39 AMFor those interested, my reasons for using git are (though I usually use it with git-svn with the main repository in SVN):
- everyone has the full history of the project always.
- This makes searching for the cause of a regression and some other things easy even when offline.
- Especially for OpenSource projects it also means it is near impossible to loose your history (there are thousands of backups).
- I can have branches with hacks that are not suitable to be published and the merging with new features from the main branch usually works quite well.
- Even though I have the full history, it uses less disk space and is faster than SVN (having to do manual compaction occasionally is a bit annoying though)
- For reading it works just fine over plain http without anything special (so I only need ordinary web space to publish it), and writing works well via ssh. So all you need for a fully functional, public repository is web space and a shell account - something e.g. every student, at least around here, has.
thanks! man really interesting and educating article.
trial blazer on April 6, 2008 12:05 PMI use Subversion and have done so for the past three years. I have taken a look at GIT, but since I'm spoiled with TortoiseSVN I haven't really seen any reason to switch.
GIT is much more advanced, and branching/merging in SVN is clearly not what the thing was built for.
But in a case of "worse is better", I stick with SVN. It does everything I need and I can easily convince myself that I don't need anything it doesn't supply.
tcliu on April 6, 2008 12:17 PMI am glad that there are many individual developers who download Git and say "it works great for me". The first job of any source control tool should be to make sure that no source ever gets lost, and secondly, that you have the tools you need to go back and figure out what the hell you broke.
However, like I said above, the second stage of source control is when you start using the tools to interact with other developers, and, if you're, err... lucky?, non-developers. Git seems to work quite well for the anarcho-meritocracy of open source development. No need to worry about angry "Core Team" developers withholding commit access here!
Now, a more traditional development environment though, I'm really thinking Git lacks the "management" features of other tools. Of course it does, that's the whole point!
ALex on April 6, 2008 12:33 PMI don't think it's possible to have a context-free debate about source control: it's very dependent on what platform/languages/tools you are using, the development environment, the development process (if there is one) etc.
I haven't used AccuRev (http://www.accurev.com/webinars/20061004_scm_accurev45.html) in production, but it looks like it rocks to me.
Now I just need to persuade management to fork out the bucks!
Ben on April 6, 2008 12:42 PMVisualSVN + VisualSVN Server FTW. The server even lets you do Windows authentication with the latest version.
John S. on April 6, 2008 12:45 PMI think every developer that sets up a svn a few times ends up writing the exact blog post you just did Jeff :) I know I did a few months back and there are dozens out there that read almost exactly like this one. Of course the only difference betweens yours and others is that you probably have a few more eyeballs on it and getting the source control word out there for every developer is key.
Personally I love svn and set it up on my Windows Home Server, which makes a great repository server. Couple that with how easy it is to integrate with all the CI servers out there and it's a winner.
Shawn Oster on April 6, 2008 1:00 PMI have just given this a go I have been thinking about source control for a while but not got round to it as I am one of just 2 developers usually working on separate applications. However obviously the advantage is you make a mistake or need some old code back that you removed you have it.
I successfully setup this on my home computer my question now is, if I install subversion at work and tortoiseSVN can I just copy the repository directory to work and use and update it. Then take it back home replacing the old one and repeat as I go.
I regularly take my work home and can't map a network drive or anything like that to share between the two. Alternatively is there somewhere on the net I could store it.
Thanks in advance.
pete on April 6, 2008 1:08 PMAlso I have several different folders in different locations should I use a separate repository for each of these. For instance I have visual studio 2008, ms access apps, visual basic 6 apps, documents. Or is there a better way.
pete on April 6, 2008 1:12 PMYes, all that is great (I use Visual Svn Server to make the server installation more palletable for the groups I consult for), but I have one question:
What is the purpose of ascii-RickRoll.txt?
Wait, I already saw the music video. Don't make me relive the 80s.
Chris Brandsma on April 6, 2008 1:14 PMI have been using SVN happily for a long time. It's what CVS should have always been (revision number per file? WTF).
I still don't see the point of distributed SCMs. I guess I will keep staying away from them until I see the need. For now, they feel like a solution for a problem I don't have (just like almost all C++ features *used* to be, to me).
Heck, even branches looked to me like a disorganized way to work, until one day I needed one, and I got enlightened :) Maybe some day the same will happen with distributed source control...
Just read the article, and set up SVN+Tortoise for my future development works. Fantastic stuff. =)
A word of warning, though: Jeff, you might want to re-check your link to the Tortoise site, since it's missing the last T. I woke up thinking slow (blonde-girl-slow, actually), and I refreshed like five times before figuring out the domain was .net and not just .ne like it's posted. =p
Still, cheers on the awesome work.
Fernando on April 6, 2008 1:28 PMIs nobody going to comment on ascii-rickroll.txt?
Mike on April 6, 2008 1:41 PMNot wishing to be a nitpicker... but regarding "If you're an ASP.NET developer, you need to switch the hidden folders from ".svn" to "_svn" format, which is on the General options page."
That was only for *Visual Studio* 2003 and earlier: a href="http://blog.dotsmart.net/2008/02/19/moving-on-from-svn_asp_dot_net_hack/"http://blog.dotsmart.net/2008/02/19/moving-on-from-svn_asp_dot_net_hack//a
Duncan Smart on April 6, 2008 1:45 PM"What is the difference between what you describe, and working traditionally offline, then checking in when you get back into the office?"
I think they call that change management. ;)
Generally it gives you more control. I tend to make checkins in a way so that I can apply single patches in the trunk or in some particular branch.
Try sorting out all those little changes for several unrelated things - which easily happen even on a short two day business trip - when your back in the office and you'll understand.
Unwritten rule for me is one check in - one change. This makes all those little bugs I might have introduced much more traceable.
Vinzent Hoefler on April 6, 2008 1:47 PM1) Tightly controlled development will remain the providence of centrally managed source control.
You can still centrally manage source code with Git.
Quite. There's nothing stopping anyone from using Git just like Subversion. There's even a module for using it with Subversion repositories.
What Git buys you is more options. That's the thing that got me so jazzed about it.
T.E.D. on April 7, 2008 2:09 AMWith respect, this seems years too late. ;) http://svn1clicksetup.tigris.org/ solved this in September of 2005.
I saw that, but then I saw the latest package was January 2007 -- so I assumed it was out of date. Is it normal not to have a release in 14 months?
Also, be sure to read Bill de hra's excellent response to this post:
http://www.dehora.net/journal/2008/04/06/what-a-dvcs-gets-you-maybe/
Jeff Atwood on April 7, 2008 2:10 AMSource_Control = "YAWN"
Subversion is OK as a VCS, although I find it a bit clumsy in some areas.
The big problem with it is the clients - I have never found a good one. The best is the Subclipse plugin for Eclipse, IMO, although I prefer a standalone client. Clients integrated into IDEs have a habit of being too helpful :-)
TortoiseSVN is a PITA. It shows the wrong view. I can already see the files on my computer, thanks very much. What I need in a VCS client is the ability to see what's in the repository, what branch I'm in, file history etc at the same time as seeing what I've changed on my machine (which is the least important view in some ways). The only way to get that sort of thing in TortoiseSVN is painful and clunky.
Unless something is checked in, it doesn't exist in the project. The repository is where you build release versions from, where your continuous integration gets its code, and so on. So management of that is key. I want to see what's happening to it, and with TortoiseSVN, that's too difficult and too poorly done.
Jim Cooper on April 7, 2008 3:50 AMa href="http://blogs.vertigosoftware.com/teamsystem/archive/2006/01/16/Setting_up_a_Subversion_Server_under_Windows.aspx"http://blogs.vertigosoftware.com/teamsystem/archive/2006/01/16/Setting_up_a_Subversion_Server_under_Windows.aspx/a
copyer on April 7, 2008 4:11 AMI use RapidSVN as a client, up to now the best (as I don't only develop in one ide and don't like tortoise's funny icons)
Regards
Jorge Diaz Tambley on April 7, 2008 4:12 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
|
|
Traffic Stats |