Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 20:33:44 -0400: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>wrote: > > > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:53:05 -0400: > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Ben Stover <bxsto...@yahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > As I can see there are a couple of different SVN servers and mutiple > > SVN > > > > clients. > > > > > > > > > > Do all SVN clients work with all SVN servers? > > > > > Or are some clients tied to the usage of some special SVN servers? > > > > > > > > All client and servers should be interoperable, even across versions. > > > > So a 1.7 client should work with a 1.0 server and vice versa. Clients > > > > are generally interoperable with each other on the same working copy > > > > as well. In that scenario, all of the clients do need to be from the > > > > same major.minor Subversion version as the client working copy format > > > > typically changes between versions > > > > > > > > > > Some features are not backwards compatible. The syntax of svn:externals, > > > for example, has changed significantly. And there are still people with > > > > The old syntax is recognized by all servers and clients, and the help > > output documents exactly which syntaxes are not compatible with older > > (<=1.4) clients. > > > And RHEL 4 comes with subversion 1.1.1. It's still under extended support > from Red Hat: I'm trying to build a clean update to the Repoforge 1.6.17 > that compiles on all RHEL 4 or greater releases, and it is *NOT* easy.
Very nice, and good luck. My main point was to clarify your statement about the compatibility of svn:externals, not to claim that 1.1 is or isn't supported.
