Re: Current state of the application
mmm ... meant "are going to shift your focus..." Also, please don't take the post to be overly hostile. I truly do wish you the best, and hope that all is well with the Sofa team ;-) On Mar 12, 11:23 am, cdn wrote: > Another nudge for the dev team. I have enjoyed using Versions, and > purchased it based on the activity that I saw around the product and > the apparent polish that Sofa exhibited in their efforts. I even > stuck my neck out by recommending Versions to a number of folks who > have also made the plunge and purchased the software. > > A rough timeline, or a note saying "we're still around, but have lost > some momentum due to X..." would be nice. > > Hey, Sofa! Please let me know at least if I should continue to > recommend Versions, or if you is going to shift your focus elsewhere. > It's only fair. > > On Mar 5, 5:44 am, Marijn wrote: > > > Hey everybody, > > > Let me start by saying that I'm really happy I've bought versions. It > > has become one of the primary tools in my workflow. Due to this though > > I'm a bit annoyed that some pretty trivial feature requests still > > haven't been fixed. I don't know how you guys feel about this but one > > of my reasons to choose Versions over Cornerstone was the fact that > > there was such great interaction with the team and the community at > > large. Not only on this list but also the fact that the team was > > steadily releasing beta's each month... Maybe I'm naive but I'd > > expected at least one significant update by now or some proper > > feedback on the top concerns reported here. I'm no desktop > > applications developer but remembering the state of my view when I > > switch between changed view and show all view could have been > > implemented in 3 months. Right...? Instead it feels like development > > has sort of halted compared to the beta period. Does anybody know > > what's going on? I really hope I'm missing something? Perhaps a > > document should be created on this group that shows all features > > requested that somehow handles voting for them... > > > Kind regards, > > > Marijn --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Current state of the application
Another nudge for the dev team. I have enjoyed using Versions, and purchased it based on the activity that I saw around the product and the apparent polish that Sofa exhibited in their efforts. I even stuck my neck out by recommending Versions to a number of folks who have also made the plunge and purchased the software. A rough timeline, or a note saying "we're still around, but have lost some momentum due to X..." would be nice. Hey, Sofa! Please let me know at least if I should continue to recommend Versions, or if you is going to shift your focus elsewhere. It's only fair. On Mar 5, 5:44 am, Marijn wrote: > Hey everybody, > > Let me start by saying that I'm really happy I've bought versions. It > has become one of the primary tools in my workflow. Due to this though > I'm a bit annoyed that some pretty trivial feature requests still > haven't been fixed. I don't know how you guys feel about this but one > of my reasons to choose Versions over Cornerstone was the fact that > there was such great interaction with the team and the community at > large. Not only on this list but also the fact that the team was > steadily releasing beta's each month... Maybe I'm naive but I'd > expected at least one significant update by now or some proper > feedback on the top concerns reported here. I'm no desktop > applications developer but remembering the state of my view when I > switch between changed view and show all view could have been > implemented in 3 months. Right...? Instead it feels like development > has sort of halted compared to the beta period. Does anybody know > what's going on? I really hope I'm missing something? Perhaps a > document should be created on this group that shows all features > requested that somehow handles voting for them... > > Kind regards, > > Marijn --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Connect to subversion 1.5.5 or higher
Do more people have problems connecting to subversion repositories using svn 1.5.5 or higher? With the current release of Versions I can't connect to that version. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: repos and trunk, branch and tag
On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:34 AM, GavinEadie wrote: I've read a lot about tagging and branching in this group and I may be as confused as some others but I used Versions to create a local repo (on a large jump drive). Part of my confusion was that the Versions "Create a new local repo..." menu pick doesn't create 'trunk', 'branch' or 'tag' folders. The result is that I have, essentially, a trunk with no branch or tag siblings. (1) Can I add those after the fact (I've not done it yet for fear of losing history), and continue in a more conventional manner. You certainly can—just create the directories in the proper locations and commit. However, when I tested local repository creation, it didn't create a "trunk" folder at all, just a repository with the standard root-level directory. This being the case, what you'll probably want to do it create 3 directories at the root level, entitled "trunk". "branches" and "tags". Commit those 3 directories to the repository. Now move everything else at the root level into "trunk" and commit. You needn't fear losing history—Subversion stores versioning data for directories as well as files, so you can `svn move` a directory (or move it in Versions) and retain all the history. (2) Would it make sense for Versions to create that folder structure (or offer an option to do so)? Although the trunk/tags/branches paradigm is the standard, many people use a different repository layout for organizing multiple projects, etc. Some people may not even care about tags or branches for their repository. Since not everyone uses the same layout, the current approach is most flexible, perhaps at the cost of some potential user confusion. As stated above, though, the structure can be changed at any time. This means that if a new SVN user happens to create a repository "the wrong way", this can be easily remedied later when they realize they want to change the structure. If you're still nervous about history, create a new repository, add a few dummy commits, then add the trunk/branches/tags and move files as suggested in step one. Just make sure you do all the changes through Subversion (either in Versions or with the svn command, not just dragging in Finder) and you'll be fine. HTH, - Quinn smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
