Talk:Apache Subversion

What?
I've read this article twice and have no idea what this thing is. The intro to this article currently reads: "Subversion is an open source application for revision control. Also commonly referred to as svn or SVN, Subversion is designed specifically to be a modern replacement for CVS and shares a number of the same key developers." Could this be dumbed down a bit? The only way to decode this jargon is to click on the links to "revision control" and "CVS." "Key developers" doesn't even have a link. I flatter myself that I know what open source is already, but don't get how it applies here. I think the average reader should be able to understand the subject of an article without clicking on links - their purpose is for additional information, not basic lucidity. I don't mean to criticize, and I hope you will appreciate the perspective of a non-techie. CClio333 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. I have a basic idea what version control is, but beyond the first paragraph everything is jibberish. This article is clearly written for experts, i.e. people who are using cvs and persuaded to switch to svn. Anton 24.201.100.166 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or fanboys who never thought to make it readable by normal people. Being Wikipedia, I'd take that bet. But yeah, everything after the intro needs rewritten. Chris Cunningham 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. I am a developer who uses subversion every day and I must say that this article is too long, too technical and very un-encylopedic.  I propose that the vast majority of it should just be deleted concerning all its features and branching abilities. Kingmundi 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Key Benefits (Marketing Speak?)
The list of "Key Benefits" contains vague words that can't be quantified. It sounds more like what might be seen on a product box rather than what should be in an encyclopedia.

For example: "Low IT infrastructure requirements (servers and bandwidth)" - compared to what? "Minimal training costs" - Need a comparison of another system's training costs. "Rich feature set" - More or less rich than similar products? And does "rich" mean there are more features, or the same number of features but with higher quality? "Robust" - Does that mean it doesn't crash often? If that's the case, what data is there to say it's anymore robust than CVS or any other versioning system?

There's a lot of other content on the page I think needs improving to provide a neutral point of view. Raisenero 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are stating it is a key benefit, that version history is retained across renames, and further below you state "Subversion currently implements the renaming of files and directories as a 'copy' to the new name followed by a 'delete' of the old name." Which of both is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.169.253 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

CollabNet is the Developer???
My understanding is that CollabNet were one of the original sponsors of the Subversion project, and yes they provide hosting for the project, and yes a *few* of the developers still work for CollabNet BUT:

- Most of the developers on the project (those with a commercial interest) work for Google, not CollabNet

- It is one of the few truly successful "Open Source" projects, so the developers *are* the community?

Therefore should "Developer" not be contributed back to the community that actually contributes to the project? 85.210.36.63 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. "CollabNet plus community", then. svn is fairly unusual in having been planned and developed by a company as an open project from scratch, so I think it's worth keeping them noted. Chris Cunningham 13:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

General Explanation/Description
I've come to this page knowing nothing about subversion and wanted to understand what it does in a general sense and have left knowing no more than when I came. Please include a general description section to bring noobs up to speed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.58.72 (talk • contribs).
 * I am in the same position! What on earth is this thing? Could someone please write an introduction that actually explains what this is about? 86.138.122.214 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is somehow normal that it is a bit less understandable to non-developers. In any case, the leading sentence leads directly to revision control. Are you sure your criticism doesn't apply to the latter, rather than to this article? &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No source given: claim that it shares a number of key developers with CVS
"Subversion is designed specifically to be a modern replacement for CVS and shares a number of the same key developers."

Got a source for that? I see the CVS Authors list: cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/cvs/ccvs/AUTHORS?view=auto and the SVN committers list: svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/COMMITTERS and didn't find any overlap among the core. (I can't make the above http links because the spam test is inaccessible.) 86.53.37.59 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One author in common is mentioned on www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1438 - who else? 86.53.37.59 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Fogel and Jim Blandy. Jim designed the basic architecture and concepts of the repository, though he did not provide much code for Subversion. Karl was hired by CollabNet (around Dec 1999) to get the project started, and has been involved since then. Both were key developers of CVS. Gstein (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Costs
Costs are proportional to change size, not data size. Which size is meant here? --Abdull 08:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is talking about file size change size would probably be the difference in a file size from rev. 1 to rev. 2.

DrSpice (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Official pronunciation
Is Subversion pronounced with the stress on the first syllable or, as if it came from the verb "to subvert", the second? Robert K S


 * I'm pretty sure it's pronounced like the English word "subversion", with the emphasis on the second syllable. It'd be pretty obtuse to demand otherwise. Chris Cunningham 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris Cunningham is correct. See here. --Karl Fogel 18:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Binaries Section
The "binaries" section has been tagged for some time as an unencyclopedic advertising board for software projects. This doesn't belong on this article, and I don't even think it warrants a list of projects related to Subversion article. If it doesn't get better soon I'm going to remove it again. Chris Cunningham 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Five days and the only contribution has been to (surprise!) tack yet another link on. Removing again. Chris Cunningham 11:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand eliminating the "related" products and the IDEs which just happen to have Subversion integration. I do disagree with removing the links for Subversion binaries (especially the official sites) and Subversion clients.  When I implemented Subversion for the first time earlier this year, the Wiki page for Subversion was my starting point for researching clients available for the product.  Before removing so much from the article you really should have discussed what parts of the content were inappropriate rather than just saying the equivalent of "if someone else doesn't fix it I'm going to remove it". --StuffOfInterest 11:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The list was tagged for some time, and it had become obvious that (like all other lists on Wikipedia) it was encouraging people to tack things on for the sake of completion. I can see the point in including a small section on CollabNet's distribution policy (though such a thing isn't particularly common to WP articles) but not a list of clients; wikipedia isn't a product guide. There are better places to list SVN clients, places where unsourced commentary is not only permitted but encouraged. I'd rather that this article concentrated on describing SVN itself. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This content has been there for a long time before recently getting removed. I think it is very useful information, although I could understand why others might not want in inside this article. Don't destroy several years of work without moving this list to it's own page or something like that. Thumperwad has been simply deleting the results of several years of edits. Cshay 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move it to its own page if you want, though it's no more encyclopedic than list of countries with KFC restaurants and would probably suffer the same fate. I've followed procedure in taking this to talk. Don't use obviously self-perpetuating non-justifications like "it's been here a long time" to defend keeping it in this article. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just ask you why this material has been in this article for more than a year if it was unwanted? I found it very useful. 71.198.35.219 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, I didn't realize until a few seconds ago that you were Thumperwad, hence my recent revert. If we move this to a new page, what is the best way to do so and give it the best chance of surviving a RFD? Anyway, feel free to move it, and add a link to the new page in it's place but I don't think the information should be outright deleted from wikipedia. Cshay 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's ward with an R, not that it matters. The best way to ensure it survives an AfD is to transform it into useful, relevant prose. However, if this was ever going to have happened, it would have happened before this point. Tagging the article didn't help. Removing the list didn't help. This is listcruft, and nobody is interested in improving it. Feel free to work on software which uses Subversion, the new sub-article. Chris Cunningham 10:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty of Subversion popularity
The claim is made that "Subversion has replaced CVS as the most popular VCS used in open source projects." yet I'm not sure if the reference provided is a good representation of the open source community as a whole. The statistics given are dependent on a project being registered with the site. From personal experience I know Subversions *is* a popular alternative to CVS in open source projects, but I can't say from that same experience that it is *more* popular than CVS in the open source world. Personally, it's seemed about even when searching sourceforge.net for software.

Also the statement feels like it slightly limits the scope of the article by implicitly associating Subversion with open source projects as opposed to *any* project (open or otherwise) as no statistics are given concerning closed software (nor would it be likely that they could).

I suggest this statement be replaced with "Subversion is currently a popular VCS alternative to CVS, particularly among many open source projects." as this statement is a little more neutral by not qualifying Subversion's popularity. Also, it is less susceptible to becoming out of date as statistics could shift significantly. If they do, this alternate statement would still be sound as long as a significant percentage of projects used Subversion. Also, this way, the reference link can be kept in place to reinforce the new statement. MerlinYoda 16:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've applied my suggestion due to a lack of any feedback against it. MerlinYoda 17:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"... particularly among open source projects"
"Subversion is currently a popular alternative to CVS (another widely used VCS), particularly among open source projects."

I think this sentence is misleading, since it indicates that SVN is not as popular in commercial software development, which - at least as far as my experiences are concerened - isn't true. At least in my experience, Subversion is one of the most widely used source control systems in commercial software development, if not even THE most popular one besides CVS. Unfortunately I have no references available to "prove" it ...

Fair use rationale for Image:Subversion.png
Image:Subversion.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a fair use rationale. --Jwwalker (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph "History"
This stub can be filled with some information I found in the German article. Short content:
 * 1) parallel to the political term "subversion"
 * 2) combining with the meaning of sub version

Available packaged servers?
Should we add VisualSVN as a reference for packaged server option? Subversion comes with svnserve.exe and can be added to a standard apache install. But for most windows admins its a no go / to complicated fro them. The VisualSVN server is something I wish I found earlier an I think should be mentioned (here or somewhere else). Any suggestions?

Apache License?
It's said in their officer suite it is use a licence similar to Apache/BSD license but not as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibingrong (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Releases up through 1.6.x have used a variant of the Apache Software License, v1.1 with a simple replacement of terms. Starting with 1.7.0, Apache Subversion will use the Apache License, v2.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstein (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Berkley DB vs FSFS
It should be noted that as of Subversion 1.5, Berkley DB is no longer offered when creating a repository on the local network. There's also a misconception from some very advanced users and developers that having more than one individual access a FSFS Subversion repository simultaneously could cause corruption to the repository. This misconception comes from documentation stemming from the Berkley DB being applied to FSFS. The fact of the matter is that when a FSFS repository is accessed for writing (e.g. a commit command), a lock file is generated. So if a second person tries to commit at the same time, their Subversion session will wait until the lock file is released. We wrote some software to automate a test of rapid commits at my company and three of us were able to commit over 200 times in three minutes to the same repository without any problems at all. --Kippspan (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect I'm missing something, but BDB is an option with both SVN 1.5 and SVN 1.6? I do agree that it's infinitely preferable to use FSFS, however. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Limitations
Distributed and centralised source control systems are different types of tool that seek to support different development models, so criticising Subversion because it's not distributed is a little bit like criticising a giraffe because it's not a fish. 193.63.239.16 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence that claimed that Linus Torvalds "attacked" subversion's centralized model because there was no evidence on the linked page that he had made any disparaging remarks about the project whatsoever. He simply made the comment that he didn't want to hear comments about subversion. Parklandspanaway (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I put the attack back, with links to the video/transcript where he called svn's developers "morons". Perfect and complete evidence. Gstein (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This section could use some work. For example: ''Subversion stores additional copies of data on the local machine, which can become an issue with very large projects or files, or if developers work on multiple branches simultaneously. In versions prior to 1.7 these .svn directories on the client side could become corrupted by ill-advised user activity like global search/replace operations. Starting with version 1.7 Subversion uses a single centralized .svn folder per working area.''

What is the purpose of pointing out limitations of outdated and unsupported versions?

Eradicator (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename request from Subversion (software) to Apache Subversion.
The official name has changed from Subversion to Apache Subversion. See - http://subversion.apache.org/#news-20100217


 * Waited for around 42 hours and from no replies I can assume that no one disagrees. Will rename myself.

Sven?
Why is the Swedish pronunciation interesting? Being a Swede I use to say "subversion" anyways. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Subversion: "version" or "subvert" ?
Greetings colleagues. Please settle our dispute, as native speakers of English.

It's well known fact, that Subversion name is a pun on "version" and "subvert". The question is, what meaning of "subversion" seems you (as native spekers) the primary one ? It seems obvious to me, that Subversion is a primarily functional name of version control system, but I have couple of stubborn opponents with universal dictionaries :). Thank you. ru:Grain (81.200.20.197) (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossposted to Reference desk 81.200.20.197 (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (ru:Grain)


 * The original name for the project (late 1999 thru about February 2000) was "Inversion". It was then switched to "Subversion" before the project started in earnest. The "version" in the name is certainly a play on version control, but everybody loved the "subvert" aspect of it. Our goal was to take over all CVS users and installations. To subvert the CVS system made the Subversion name perfect. Gstein (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename this page "Subversion (software)" ?
To make it more generic ? --Rrdieci (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * it has been renamed from "Subversion" to "Apache Subversion", so I don't think adding "(software)" will provide any further disambiguation Gstein (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction in the Image representing the 3d Tree
I've noticed an inconsistency in the image created by Marmaled. The reference image is factually correct. However the Revision numbers in the new image are not. Please consider correcting these, as they are pretty confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyndsurfer (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Use in animation/music production?
I wonder if version control systems can also be used by animation studios, composers and music producers to facilitate project management. Any thoughts about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.242.80 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it can be used to control data of any type, but since the intended use of SVN is software development, it may lack some functionality they need and will most likely have a lot of functionality that won't be of any use to them. Some of the functionality (Blame springs to mind) may be used better if data is encoded into a markup language like XML. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is definitely in use by companies for media assets. id Software comes to mind, as a prominent and long-time user of svn for game assets. Gstein (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FSFS
This acronym is not even expanded, let alone explained. It seems the FSFS article existed at one time but was deleted as a copyright violation three and a half years ago. Not sure it is independently notable, but should be explained somewhere. W Nowicki (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Broken link
Link 4 in section Notes is broken. --Mortense (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Tags and other obvious features
I'll resist getting into an edit war regarding this edit. But Subversion can tag revisions just like you can create branches. It would be hard to do one without the other. Subversion has several design choices such as using the repository file system as the mechanism to identify revisions. And even the Revision tag definition states: "'A revision tag is the term often used to define a textual label that can be associated with a specific revision of a project maintained by a revision control system.'" The "textual label" is the path in the "tags" repository directory. This pattern is described in SVN manual and almost every discussion among people that actual use SVN.

Also, the article really reeks of bias with an out of proportion "Limitations and problems" being quarter of the article. The Git article doesn't even have a limitation section. Describing bugs that may or may not have already been fixed is fairly useless for an encyclopedia. --MarsRover (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was coming to create a comment on this same issue. The statement that "it would be hard to do one (create brances) without the other (create tags)" shows a complete misunderstanding of what a tag is, as branches and tags are completely different to users of other revision control systems.  This is not meant as a flame nor insult to SubVersion, but a tag (or label, or alias) refers to a specific thing, they are not at all synonymous with branches nor copies.


 * The definition of a revision tag posted clearly says that a tag refers to a "specific revision" of a project, while SubVersion does not allow you to do that. Instead, you must create a /different/ revision (different Version number!) and place that revision under a different, named directory.  That is 100% not a tag.


 * By all normal definitions of a "tag", it refers to a specific state of the source. Making a copy of a "specific revision" captures that singular and specific state. "revision" is an external concept to the various states that source moves through, and has little relevance to the popular definition of a tag. Subversion's tags are represented as copies of a specific state. Every user of Subversion, and every user that switches to Subversion, who has any prior notion and understanding of a "tag" agrees that its tag concept conforms to accepted definition. As a matter of concrete evidence: CVS has no singular revision; its tags capture a particular state. Perforce has no tags, but uses "labels" as a concept. The singular, stable concept across these systems is capturing of state. I have restored the text that specifies that Subversion supports tags. I consider myself a concrete authority on Subversion, and knowledgable about version control concepts. In my opinion, we absolutely support tags. If there is disagreement, then this Talk page is where the case needs to be made (not on the page itself). Dmprantz: I have also noted on your Talk page a reference to the "3-revert" rule, and am quite willing to put you on notice to the Wikipedia administrators if you further revert. Gstein (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Does subversion _implement_ any difference between tags and branches? I could not find any. Which would mean subversion branches can be used to "capture a particular state" - quite funny! Marchash (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no technical difference in Subversion; I clarified the article. Seriously! IMO the main difference in Subversion is a tag is never (or rarely) modified, and a branch is intended to have new revisions added into it. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC).


 * I do not use Git, and am not a proponent of it nor any other revision control system. From a NPOV, as some one who knows what a tag truly is, I can say that without a doubt SubVersion does not support them.  Period.  The documentation claims to support tags and shows a work-around to obtain functionality similar to having tags, but they are not tags any more than they are an encryption feature.  It's an attempt by the developers of the system to claim to support something rather than being honest.  Again, this is not a flame, it is a fact.  Tags have features and functionalities which SubVersion copies cannot emulate. ===---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.195.220 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote the previous comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmprantz (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Uugh.. this the reason why I don't edit programming articles. Sure the way "tags" were done changes the "revision number" but that was a design decision not a work around. So, until they re-implement "tags" they way you want, they don't have "tags". Got it thanks. --MarsRover (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. We should just let any software project say whatever it wants and disregard truths.  MongoDB can say that they are an ACID complient RDBMS, but they made a design decision to implement them differently.  Visual Studio compiles INTERCAL to the CLR, but they made a design decision to implement the language differently and called it C#.  When something has a definition, an accepted meaning, we can't go around changing what that thing means just because some one decided to do something else.  If the article were edited to indicate that the designers of SVN made a design decision to use copies instead of tags, (and there were a reference made) that would one thing, but copies are not an implementation of tags, and no amount of discussion regarding design decisions and their own documentation will change that fact.


 * I thought of another example which demonstrates my point: The .Net framework (like Java) does not support multiple inheritance, though it does support multiple implementations of interfaces.  That was a design decision.  Some one could argue that by using multiple interfaces and encapsulation or utility classes, the same or similar effect of MI can be achieved inside of .Net applications, but that does not mean that .Net supports MI.  To imply otherwise would be disingenuous.  I contend that the SubVersion team has a procedure in place to provide functionality similar to tags, however that is no more implementing tagging than multiple interfaces is MI. Dmprantz (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a whole set of people who use the term "tag" to mean exactly what a "tag" is in subversion. So, the statement When something has a definition, an accepted meaning, we can't go around changing what that thing means is based your own POV. You can say svn doesn't have a way to "label revision numbers" which is completely true. But the shorten generic term "tag" has a broader definition. And in your own example language, it like saying something isn't a database because it doesn't have tables or isn't ACID compliant. --MarsRover (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "A whole set of people" - are they all SVN users? Is there any system besides SVN which calls "tags" mere copies? Marchash (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Tagging
I use Subversion every day, and have done so for the past 6 years. Before that I used various SCMs, including TFS, CMS, and VSS. Subversion is a very capable system with a lot of features, and I am not a "hater," nor dissident, but I am independent, objective, and honest. Each of the other systems I used had a feature for tagging or labeling specific revisions, and as a user of those systems, I know what tagging is: A textual label assigned to a specific revision. As much as the some people would like to pretend otherwise, Subversion does not have that feature. Users of Subversion can use copies to keep track of some things, but copies are not read-only, and they require a new revision number.

If TFS took out the feature of labeling and told users that they had to use branching instead, do you think the world would just accept that branching is tagging? No. The user-base would acknowledge that while branching could be used instead of labeling, TFS would no longer support tagging. The same is true here. I know it hurts to be told that your favourite SCM does not support a feature, but it's a fact. I'm not trying to hurt Subversion, but to be honest, it does not have a feature, and uses a different feature to work around it. Please be honest with yourselves and the Wikipedia community when discussing this product. I know of no one outside of those who have only ever used SubVersion who consider a copy to be synonymous with a tag. Dmprantz (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And by the way: One of the excuses that many SVN users use to justify calling copies tags is that SVN uses a perforce pattern.  According to the Perforce P4 user's guide, http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4guide/p4guide.pdf that product supports tagging as well.  The product SVN was supposed to displace, CVS supports tagging as well.  You can make the argument all day long that the creators of SVN chose to implement copies instead of labels, but that does not mean that copies are labels, because they are different things.Dmprantz (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * as a user of those systems, I know what tagging is -- that's completely irrelevant. We can't source WP articles from personal knowledge. We have reliable sources that state Subversion supports tagging -- http://books.google.com/books?id=QAr82w_eSi8C&pg=PA210&dq=does+subversion+support+tagging, http://books.google.com/books?id=KZoAq_mbhXAC&pg=PA373&dq=does+subversion+support+tagging, http://books.google.com/books?id=Sr2HKC46ImcC&pg=PA67&dq=does+subversion+support+tagging, http://books.google.com/books?id=qJsXefpx1AUC&pg=PA206&dq=does+subversion+support+tagging, http://books.google.com/books?id=JtIZBpOZDgQC&pg=PA563&dq=does+subversion+support+tagging... and I could go on. What sources do you have that state specifically that Subversion does not support tags? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the Wikipedia article on Tagging, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_tag which says that a tag is a way to apply a textual label a specific revision. Creating a copy in SVN creates a new revision and thus does not allow SVN to fulfill that definition.  I also have logic which says that 2 != 3.  SVN has a capable mechanism which allows it to do many of the same things that tagging does, but it is not itself tagging, any more that C# is Java, nor my dogs are actually cats.  Both languages can do many of the same things, but they aren't the same.  My dogs can eat, walk, and go to the bathroom just like cats, but they still aren't cats.Dmprantz (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is Not A Reliable Source, and even if it were, the article doesn't support your contention that nothing outside of what that article says is a tag counts. If you have no reliable sources to support your contention, I'll be restoring the information. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If SVN is the only system which "implements" tags as copies (without any specific code...) while all the others implement tags as references, then it's more than enough proof that SVN does not implement the common and accepted definition of tags. Marchash (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The current sections "Branching and tagging" and "Subversion tags and branches" approach this 'tags' problem differently, and need to be rewritten in a cohesive manner. The former pretends 'svn copy' is an implementation of tags, whereas the latter admits 'svn copy' is not an implementation of tags. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

working copy file formats
I came here looking for assistance wrt T95075, but this article doesnt provide much information about the different versions of the working copy file format. A matrix of SVN release <-> file format would be a good start. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Unicode filenames issue
This paragraph (in the Limitations and problems section) does not describe the problem correctly, and the problem is not specific to subversion. The paragraph should be removed. I tried to do this myself, but I got reverted because one of the paragraph's two citations is still a valid link. I guess we need to develop some sort of consensus about this? Does anybody have any thoughts? 2601:197:0:3A28:99E9:492B:99B2:A96F (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The preferable course of action is to correct the issue, and not perform a blanket delete of long standing content.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to leave room for the possibility that the problem is actually that the content exists in the first place. 2601:197:0:3A28:99E9:492B:99B2:A96F (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps explaining why you believe it should be removed would be a good starting point. Maybe something more than "It's wrong."  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you've been reading, but I have explained this several times. This issue is not specific to subversion. For this problem to be described on the subversion page gives the false impression that it is specific to subversion. It isn't. See here for example. Besides, why do I have to explain this to YOU? Do you actually have any familiarity with the subject matter of this article, or are you just trolling the recent changes list blindly reverting perceived infractions?
 * In any case, I've rewritten the paragraph to be more correct. One thing that may be somewhat specific to subversion is the lack of any official workaround for this issue, so I am actually leaning somewhat more toward keeping it now. But I still very much disagree with the strategy that you took in dealing with this. 2601:197:0:3A28:5548:E786:6FF7:343D (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * More specifically, you didn't give a reason why it should stay other than the fact that it had at least one citation which is still a valid link. This is quite a low bar to set for deciding which content should stay. 2601:197:0:3A28:5548:E786:6FF7:343D (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Apache Subversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107072118/http://www.mentalpointer.com:80/Subversion/svn-book.html to http://mentalpointer.com/Subversion/svn-book.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apache Subversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714160428/http://www.perforce.com/perforce/branch.html to http://www.perforce.com/perforce/branch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)