David,
Ok, thanks for settings the record straight. These nuances are important to me.
I definitely like the passion you guys have, the big plans, and the
intention to take the bull by the horns :-). I hope you can get the
ball rolling, with an actively participating community, and make
You're welcome and I *really* appreciated the opportunity to set the
record straight. Whenever you put your head above the parapet...
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Johan Corveleyn jcor...@gmail.com wrote:
David,
Ok, thanks for settings the record straight. These nuances are important to
[This is a one-off and we will not post this again on this list]
Following the
announcementhttp://www.wandisco.com/php/pr.php?rss=0prdate=2010-12-20by
WANdisco yesterday that we would undertake the work to fix / improve
branching and merging in Subversion; we are on the lookout for new
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Pablo Beltran pa...@svnflash.com wrote:
Hi,
I have no doubt about those all features will be good for the future of
Subversion, from a technical point of view.
On the other hand, the underlaying message scares me. The message is clear:
Apache can't drive the
David,
Absolutely correct!
Your analysis / explanation is much better than my own. Thank you.
- David
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM, David Weintraub qazw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Pablo Beltran pa...@svnflash.com wrote:
Hi,
I have no doubt about those all
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM, David Weintraub
qazw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Pablo Beltran pa...@svnflash.com
wrote:
Hi,
I have no doubt about those all features will be good for the
future of
Subversion, from a technical point of view.
On the other
Johan,
Firstly, thank you for caring about Subversion - we *do*, passionately.
1. The feeling of a lack of progress is not new and it's not just
WANdisco's big customers as you put it. I don't think I am blaming any
individual - it's just a fact of life as I said *We are not happy with the
