Here’s a small glimpse of open source politics at work. License differences and philosophical differences seem to have lead this relationship to the shoals. It’s too bad, Subclipse is a great tool (I’ve been using it since it was not-so-great), and the fact that Eclipse supports CVS natively but requires third party plugins for SVN support seems somewhat anachronistic.
Anyone used Subversive? It’s an alternative to Subclipse that I haven’t used, but that does seem to have the blessing of the Eclipse project.
Update: Be sure to read Mark Phippard’s comment. He’s the project leader for Subclipse and elaborates, basically saying that moving under the Eclipse project offered limited value for a big hassle, given that a Subversion plugin won’t be making it into the main Eclipse package.
April 24, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Hmmm, your post is making me think I need to edit that page or something as you have read a lot more into this then was intended. It basically boils down to Eclipse does not have a lot to offer above and beyond project hosting. We already get that at tigris.org and are happy with it and it keeps us close to the Subversion developers which is actually a lot more important to Subclipse (technically). So why would we want to move the project, undergo legal and IP review, rename packages and code, learn new hosting related issues, move to a new issue tracker etc.
This is not an issue of one project being blessed and the other not. We had the opportunity to continue on with our proposal if we wanted. We decided that proactively withdrawing the proposal was the best thing for Subclipse and its users.
I think if we see a change at Eclipse, it will be the removal of CVS from the default download, not the inclusion of SVN. I doubt that will happen, but I think it is more likely than adding an SVN plug-in. If we are not bundled with default download then what is the point? You might as well download from tigris.
Mark