Top svn Questions

List of Tags
522
grapefrukt

I've seen these words a lot around Subversion (and I guess general repository) discussions. I have been using SVN for my projects the last few years, but I've never grasped the complete concept of these directories.

What do they mean?

Answered By: Jon Limjap ( 407)

Hmm, not sure I agree with Nick re tag being similar to a branch. A tag is just a marker

  • Trunk would be the main body of development, originating from the start of the project until the present.

  • Branch will be a copy of code derived from a certain point in the trunk that is used for applying major changes to the code while preserving the integrity of the code in the trunk. If the major changes work according to plan, they are usually merged back into the trunk.

  • Tag will be a point in time on the trunk or a branch that you wish to preserve. The two main reasons for preservation would be that either this is a major release of the software, whether alpha, beta, RC or RTM, or this is the most stable point of the software before major revisions on the trunk were applied.

In open source projects, major branches that are not accepted into the trunk by the project stakeholders can become the bases for forks -- e.g., totally separate projects that share a common origin with other source code.

395
git, svn
Ben Mills

I've been using Subversion for a few years and after using SourceSafe, I just love Subversion. Combined with TortoiseSVN, I can't really imagine how it could be any better.

Yet there's a growing number of developers claiming that Subversion has problems and that we should be moving to the new breed of distributed version control systems, such as Git.

How does Git improve upon Subversion?

Answered By: Michael Stum ( 550)

Git is not better than Subversion. But is also not worse. It's different.

The key difference is that it is decentralized. Imagine you are a developer on the road, you develop on your laptop and you want to have source control so that you can go back 3 hours.

With Subversion, you have a Problem: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (in your company, and you don't have internet at the moment), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it.

With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it.

This looks good at first, but just keep in mind the added complexity to this approach.

Git seems to be the "new, shiny, cool" thing. It's by no means bad (there is a reason Linus wrote it for the Linux Kernel development after all), but I feel that many people jump on the "Distributed Source Control" train just because it's new and is written by Linus Torvalds, without actually knowing why/if it's better.

Subversion has Problems, but so does Git, Mercurial, CVS, TFS or whatever.

Edit: So this answer is now a year old and still generates many upvotes, so I thought I'll add some more explanations. In the last year since writing this, Git has gained a lot of momentum and support, particularly since sites like GitHub really took off. I'm using both Git and Subversion nowadays and I'd like to share some personal insight.

First of all, Git can be really confusing at first when working decentralized. What is a remote? and How to properly set up the initial repository? are two questions that come up at the beginning, especially compared to SVN's simple "svnadmin create", Git's "git init" can take the parameters --bare and --shared which seems to be the "proper" way to set up a centralized repository. There are reasons for this, but it adds complexity. The documentation of the "checkout" command is very confusing to people changing over - the "proper" way seems to be "git clone", while "git checkout" seems to switch branches.

Git REALLY shines when you are decentralized. I have a server at home and a Laptop on the road, and SVN simply doesn't work well here. With SVN, I can't have local source control if I'm not connected to the repository (Yes, I know about SVK or about ways to copy the repo). With Git, that's the default mode anyway. It's an extra command though (git commit commits locally, whereas git push origin master pushes the master branch to the remote named "origin").

As said above: Git adds complexity. Two modes of creating repositories, checkout vs. clone, commit vs. push... You have to know which commands work locally and which work with "the server" (I'm assuming most people still like a central "master-repository").

Also, the tooling is still insufficient, at least on Windows. Yes, there is a Visual Studio AddIn, but I still use git bash with msysgit.

SVN has the advantage that it's MUCH simpler to learn: There is your repository, all changes to towards it, if you know how to create, commit and checkout and you're ready to go and can pickup stuff like branching, update etc. later on.

Git has the advantage that it's MUCH better suited if some developers are not always connected to the master repository. Also, it's much faster than SVN. And from what I hear, branching and merging support is a lot better (which is to be expected, as these are the core reasons it was written).

This also explains why it gains so much buzz on the Internet, as Git is perfectly suited for Open Source projects: Just Fork it, commit your changes to your own Fork, and then ask the original project maintainer to pull your changes. With Git, this just works. Really, try it on Github, it's magic.

What I also see are Git-SVN Bridges: The central repository is a Subversion repo, but developers locally work with Git and the bridge then pushes their changes to SVN.

But even with this lengthy addition, I still stand by my core message: Git is not better or worse, it's just different. If you have the need for "Offline Source Control" and the willingness to spend some extra time learning it, it's fantastic. But if you have a strictly centralized Source Control and/or are struggling to introduce Source Control in the first place because your co-workers are not interested, then the simplicity and excellent tooling (at least on Windows) of SVN shine.

374
Dan

What good free online SVN repository can be recommended?

I found OpenSVN.csie.org, but the message in red is a bit scary.

Answered By: NerdFury ( 237)

I like Assembla. It has svn hosting as well as Trac for wiki documentation and bug tracking. The free workspace is good for most projects, but you can pay for more space if you need.

Update: Assembla now offers free private repositories for 1 month http://www.assembla.com/catalog/tag/free

Update: As of February 2012, Assembla now offers free private repositories with a limit of 1gb and unlimited users.

370
rjmunro

SVN in Eclipse is spread into 2 camps. The SVN people have developed a plugin called Subclipse. The Eclipse people have a plugin called Subversive. Broadly speaking they both do the same things. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Answered By: Brendon ( 94)

Both are very similar but Subversive is the "eclipse svn provider". I primarily use subversive because of a few convenient features.

Grouping of history. When i'm browsing the history of a branch instead of just seeing a bunch of rows for every commit it can group commits by today, week, etc.

Mapping of trunk, branches, and tags. Subversive assumes the default svn layout trunk, branches, tags (which you can change) so whenever you want to tag or branch its one click and you provide the name of the tag or branch.

Like i said these are minor differences that i just find convenient. Both work great with mylyn, but overall there really isn't a whole lot of differences with theses two extensions.

Merging with subversive is a pain though (haven't tried subclipse), I've never been able to successfully merge. The preview of the merge is great but it would never complete the merge or it will take way to long. Most of the time i complete merging thru the command line without any issues.

350
Milan Babuškov

I read git manual, FAQ, Git - SVN crash course, etc. and they all explain this and that, but nowhere can you find a simple instruction like:

SVN repository in: svn://myserver/path/to/svn/repos

Git repository in: git://myserver/path/to/git/repos

git-do-the-magic-svn-import-with-history svn://myserver/path/to/svn/repos git://myserver/path/to/git/repos

I don't expect it to be that simple, and I don't expect it to be a single command. But I do expect it not to try to explain anything - just to say what steps to take given this example.

Answered By: jfm3 ( 128)

Magic:

$ git svn clone http://svn/repo/here/trunk

Git and SVN operate very differently. You need to learn Git, and if you want to track changes from SVN upstream, you need to learn git-svn. The git-svn man page has a good examples section:

$ git svn --help
332
svn, osx
Flubba

On Windows, TortoiseSVN is the daddy, no question. On the Mac there is nothing as simple and integrated, but there is a fair choice of tools. Which GUI clients for Subversion (SVN) are worth checking out and why?

Answered By: Flubba ( 135)

Having been disappointed with all of them for one reason or another (mainly because they're horrible to use), I settled on the command line tools for ages. I was therefore delighted to find one that didn't make me want to stick pins in my eyes. Versions is a new SVN client now in Beta and is the first one to offer proper Mac OS X look and feel.

WARNING - Beta 5 converts your working copies to 1.5 format, and earlier versions of the SVN command line client tools cannot work with them after 1.5 has touched them. But it is easy to update the client tools to 1.5. As of 20080811, Beta 6 now supports both 1.4 and 1.5.

[I have no connection with the company or product.]

EDIT - Cornerstone does look good... I am happy with Versions for now, and will probably pay for it when it launches. The main loss for me is the built in diff-window in Cornerstone - that's nice - but the clunky management of working copies separately from repositories is something I found really bad with things like svnX and I think that's a clear win for Versions.

Diffing is so important that every developer should have a good tool. On Windows, we settled on the free WinMerge, but on the Mac I rely totally on the awesome and free TextWrangler; Versions automatically selected it to use for doing comparisons, so I am happy as a hog with them working together.

The Ohlhauser review is really useful - thanks for linking that. He's also posted a follow-up which is also worth reading.

I'm really glad there are now two really good tools available; SmartSVN, svnX and ZigVersion were all good efforts but all far short of the excellent standard set by TortoiseSVN on Windows.

UPDATE, JUNE 2011: Following the purchase of the Sofa team by Facebook, the future of VersionsApp is a little unclear. It will continue, but I'm not sure who will be maintaining it now. In other news, it still lacks built-in support for merging, still the biggest headache for many SVN users, I believe. But Cornerstone 2 supports merging and branching in the GUI now, so I am currently downloading that to evaluate it.

Just started using SVN and I have a cache directory that I don't need under source control. How can I ignore the whole directory/folder with SVN?

Edit: Using Versions and TextMate on OSX and commandline

Answered By: Jason Cohen ( 297)

Set the svn:ignore property of the directory:

svn propset svn:ignore dirname .

If you have multiple things to ignore, separate by newlines in the property value. In that case it's easier to edit the property value using an external editor:

svn propedit svn:ignore .

Visual Studio solutions contain two types of hidden user files. One is the solution .suo file which is a binary file. The other is the project .user file which is a text file. Does anyone know exactly what data these files contain? I've also been wondering whether I should be adding these files to source control (Subversion in my case). If I don't add these files and another developer checks out the solution, will Visual Studio automatically create new user files?

Answered By: Fabio Ceconello ( 217)

These files contain user preference configurations that are in general specific to your machine, so it's better not to put it in SCM. Also, VS will change it almost every time you execute it, so it will allways be marked by the SCM as 'changed'. I don't include both, I'm in a project using VS for 2 years and had no problems doing that. The only minor annoyance is that the debug parameters (execution path, deployment target, etc.) are stored in one of those files (don't know which), so if you have a standard for them you won't be able o 'publish' it via SCM for other developers to have the entire development environment 'ready to use'.

266
Dan

I get this error when I do a svn update:

Working copy xxxxxxxx locked Please execute "Cleanup" command

When I run cleanup, i get

Cleanup failed to process the following paths: xxxxxx

How do i get out of this loop?

Answered By: Chuck ( 284)

One approach would be to:

  1. Copy edited items to another location.
  2. Delete the folder containing the problem path.
  3. Update the containing folder through Subversion.
  4. Copy your files back.
  5. Commit

Another option would be to delete the top level folder and check out again. Hopefully it doesn't come to that though.

I've heard a few places that one of the main ways distributed version control systems shine, is much better merging than traditional tools like SVN. Is this actually due to inherent differences in how the two systems work, or do specific DVCS implementations like Git/Mercurial just have cleverer merging algorithms than SVN?

Answered By: Spoike ( 322)

The claim of why merging is better in a DVCS than in Subversion was largely based on how branching and merge worked in Subversion a while ago. Subversion prior to 1.5.0 didn't store any information about when branches were merged, thus when you wanted to merge you had to specify which range of revisions that had to be merged.

So why did Subversion merges suck?

Ponder this example:

      1   2   4     6     8
trunk o-->o-->o---->o---->o
       \
        \   3     5     7
b1       +->o---->o---->o

When we want to merge b1's changes into the trunk we'd issue the following command, while standing on a folder that has trunk checked out:

svn merge -r 3:7 {link to branch b1}

… which will attempt to merge the changes from b1 into your local working directory. And then you commit the changes after you resolve any conflicts and tested the result. When you commit the revision tree would look like this:

      1   2   4     6     8   9
trunk o-->o-->o---->o---->o-->o      "the merge commit is at r9"
       \
        \   3     5     7
b1       +->o---->o---->o

However this way of specifying ranges of revisions gets quickly out of hand when the version tree grows as subversion didn't have any meta data on when and what revisions got merged together. Ponder on what happens later:

           12        14
trunk  …-->o-------->o
                                     "Okay, so when did we merge last time?"
              13        15
b1     …----->o-------->o

This is largely an issue by the repository design that Subversion has, in order to create a branch you need to create a new virtual directory in the repository which will house a copy of the trunk but it doesn't store any information regarding when and what things got merged back in. That will lead to nasty merge conflicts at times. What was even worse is that Subversion used two-way merging by default, which has some crippling limitations in automatic merging when two branch heads are not compared with their common ancestor.

To mitigate this Subversion now stores meta data for branch and merge. That would solve all problems right?

And oh, by the way, Subversion still sucks…

On a centralized system, like subversion, virtual directories suck. Why? Because everyone has access to view them… even the garbage experimental ones. Branching is good if you want to experiment but you don't want to see everyones' and their aunts experimentation. This is serious cognitive noise. The more branches you add, the more crap you'll get to see.

The more public branches you have in a repository the harder it will be to keep track of all the different branches. So the question you'll have is if the branch is still in development or if it is really dead which is hard to tell in any centralized version control system.

Most of the time, from what I've seen, an organization will default to use one big branch anyway. Which is a shame because that in turn will be difficult to keep track of testing and release versions, and whatever else good comes from branching.

So why are DVCS, such as Git, Mercurial and Bazaar, better than Subversion at branching and merging?

There is a very simple reason why: branching is a first-class concept. There are no virtual directories by design and branches are hard objects in DVCS which it needs to be such in order to work simply with synchronization of repositories (i.e. push and pull).

The first thing you do when you work with a DVCS is to clone repositories (git's clone, hg's clone and bzr's branch). Cloning is conceptually the same thing as creating a branch in version control. Some call this forking or branching (although the latter is often also used to refer to co-located branches), but it's just the same thing. Every user runs their own repository which means you have a per-user branching going on.

The version structure is not a tree, but rather a graph instead. More specifically a directed acyclic graph (DAG, meaning a graph that doesn't have any cycles). You really don't need to dwell into the specifics of a DAG other than each commit has one or more parent references (which what the commit was based on). So the following graphs will show the arrows between revisions in reverse because of this.

A very simple example of merging would be this; imagine a central repository called origin and a user, Alice, cloning the repository to her machine.

         a…   b…   c…
origin   o<---o<---o
                   ^master
         |
         | clone
         v

         a…   b…   c…
alice    o<---o<---o
                   ^master
                   ^origin/master

What happens during a clone is that every revision is copied to Alice exactly as they were (which is validated by the uniquely identifiable hash-id's), and marks where the origin's branches are at.

Alice then works on her repo, committing in her own repository and decides to push her changes:

         a…   b…   c…
origin   o<---o<---o
                   ^ master

              "what'll happen after a push?"


         a…   b…   c…   d…   e…
alice    o<---o<---o<---o<---o
                             ^master
                   ^origin/master

The solution is rather simple, the only thing that the origin repository needs to do is to take in all the new revisions and move it's branch to the newest revision (which git calls "fast-forward"):

         a…   b…   c…   d…   e…
origin   o<---o<---o<---o<---o
                             ^ master

         a…   b…   c…   d…   e…
alice    o<---o<---o<---o<---o
                             ^master
                             ^origin/master

The use case, which I illustrated above, doesn't even need to merge anything. So the issue really isn't with merging algorithms since three-way merge algorithm is pretty much the same between all version control systems. The issue is more about structure than anything.

So how about you show me an example that has a real merge?

Admittedly the above example is a very simple use case, so lets do a much more twisted one albeit a more common one. Remember that origin started out with three revisions? Well, the guy who did them, lets call him Bob, has been working on his own and made a commit on his own repository:

         a…   b…   c…   f…
bob      o<---o<---o<---o
                        ^ master
                   ^ origin/master

                   "can Bob push his changes?" 

         a…   b…   c…   d…   e…
origin   o<---o<---o<---o<---o
                             ^ master

Now Bob can't push his changes directly to the origin repository. How the system detects this is by checking if Bob's revisions directly descents from origin's, which in this case doesn't. Any attempt to push will result into the system saying something akin to "Uh... I'm afraid can't let you do that Bob."

So Bob has to pull-in and then merge the changes (with git's pull; or hg's pull and merge; or bzr's merge). This is a two-step process. First Bob has to fetch the new revisions, which will copy them as they are from the origin repository. We can now see that the graph diverges:

                        v master
         a…   b…   c…   f…
bob      o<---o<---o<---o
                   ^
                   |    d…   e…
                   +----o<---o
                             ^ origin/master

         a…   b…   c…   d…   e…
origin   o<---o<---o<---o<---o
                             ^ master

The second step of the pull process is to merge the diverging tips and make a commit of the result:

                                 v master
         a…   b…   c…   f…       1…
bob      o<---o<---o<---o<-------o
                   ^             |
                   |    d…   e…  |
                   +----o<---o<--+
                             ^ origin/master

Hopefully the merge won't run into conflicts (if you anticipate them you can do the two steps manually in git with fetch and merge). What later needs to be done is to push in those changes again to origin, which will result into a fast-forward merge since the merge commit is a direct descendant of the latest in the origin repository:

                                 v origin/master
                                 v master
         a…   b…   c…   f…       1…
bob      o<---o<---o<---o<-------o
                   ^             |
                   |    d…   e…  |
                   +----o<---o<--+

                                 v master
         a…   b…   c…   f…       1…
origin   o<---o<---o<---o<-------o
                   ^             |
                   |    d…   e…  |
                   +----o<---o<--+

There is another option to merge in git and hg, called rebase, which'll move Bob's changes to after the newest changes. Since I don't want this answer to be any more verbose I'll let you read the git, mercurial or bazaar docs about that instead.

As an exercise for the reader, try drawing out how it'll work out with another user involved. It is similarly done as the example above with Bob. Merging between repositories is easier than what you'd think because all the revisions/commits are uniquely identifiable.

There is also the issue of sending patches between each developer, that was a huge problem in Subversion which is mitigated in git, hg and bzr by uniquely identifiable revisions. Once someone has merged his changes (i.e. made a merge commit) and sends it for everyone else in the team to consume by either pushing to a central repository or sending patches then they don't have to worry about the merge, because it already happened. Martin Fowler calls this way of working promiscuous integration.

Because the structure is different from Subversion, by instead employing a DAG, it enables branching and merging to be done in an easier manner not only for the system but for the user as well.