Any former SVK users on this list?

[Marko Käning]

Hi Georg,

> Svk by itself is reasonable, IMHO. But as soon as you try combining 
> it with SVN it gets messy. 

that was my WHOLE IDEA. I thought, that's what SVK was developed for...


> E.g. if you try to get sophisticated, use
> svk for mirroring an SVN repo then access the mirror with native SVN 
> tools like Tortoise or an Eclipse SVN plugin. There are hard rules
> never to forget or you are in trouble. 

Well, I could not get a single answer to how to actually get TortoiseSVN working with an SVK repo.
I tried to access the .svk/local SVN repo and do a "svk push" to update the originally mirrored SVN repo, as well as solely working only on a local copy of a repo, but I could never get it to work. TortoiseSVN somehow seems always to corrupt svk's repo in such a way that svk cannot work normally afterwards. I partly had log comments in svk's repos, but not the changes themselves... VERY WEIRD!!!


> And the SVN clients running 
> against the mirror will be isolated, no integration with the mirror 
> functionality --
> you have to do that from the command line with svk.

Well, that's clear.


> I am much happier using just Hg now, esp. as native Hg client 
> integration like TortoiseHg, Eclipse plugins are appearing. And. the "
> history
> is a graph" appeals a lot to me. No more need to remember creating a 
> branch when I back up one or two versions and want to try alternatives 

The history graph is really neat.

But I always liked the idea to keep my original SVN repos and access them with SVK to not to change the rules of the game for my other users.

ALSO, I think that TortoiseHg is still far away in terms of usability from TortoiseSVN! But who knows - given the fact that mercurial's community is seemingly growing fast - one might hope that it is going to give TortoiseHg a push as well...

I have the impression, that Mercurial is actually catching up on SVN in terms the number of users... Am I wrong here?

Regards,
Marko