Subversion support planned?

[Molto Mike]

Dear Sparx,

while previous posts regarding this topic are outdated (as far as I found them...), I saw many users asking for native support of Subversion.

So do we...  

Could you give a some kind of indication on whether you plan to do this at all?

Thanks a lot,
Mike

[mikewhit]

I saw many users asking for ...

Well, eight actually !

According to a Feb 2004 poll here http://www.manageability.org/polls/what-configuration-management-at-work

51% of responders used CVS, with VSS coming in second at 12%, followed by ClearCase at 9%.

Subversion came in 6th at 4%.

I guess Sparx are picking off the biggest names first (assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the figures are representative !)

We use CVS ...

[thomaskilian]

Mike, in Germany we call this a "milkmaid calculation".  But you are probably right in what you express   (I use subversion)

[Molto Mike]

Just wondering who is the milkmaid here...  

Looking at other polls, subversion looks much better (isn't that surprising?):

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7273

or: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/pq/62

Those polls might not be that representative after all...  :-/
Anyway, I would still love to hear from Sparx themselves whether they have this on their radar or not...

Mike

[mikewhit]

Some people like (eg.) the folder capability of Subversion; I happen to like the unique file version number in RCS/CVS which Subversion has done away with - if I understand correctly.

From this point of view, Sv looks good for some kinds of project, but the RCS/CVS system allows better tracking of file versions and so IMHO is the winner if traceability is one of your priorities - eg for TickIT.

If Sv supported 'proper' file versions, it would have my vote too ! As it is, the repository version increases every time it is modified, and so identical instances of the same file can have different 'version numbers' - not ideal.