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 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 development process by itself and only Wandisco > can > > do it in the right way and in timing. > > > > And I think that this exceeds Subversion project and undermines Apache's > > authority. > > > > Today is Wandisco and Subversion. Tomorrow could be Oracle or Microsoft > > doing the same with other project. I would not like see Apache become in > a > > silly Software Factory. > > > > But of course, I have not enough knowledge about how Apache internally > works > > and perhaps I'm saying a very great stupidness. So, my apologizes for > that > > if that is the case. > > > > I am going to look at this a bit differently: Has IBM taken over > Linux? A majority of the changes in Linux are done by IBM paid > employees. IBM has its own goals and its own ideas about what they > want to do with Linux. > > However, I believe most people feel that Linux isn't an IBM project > despite the massive amount of work done by a single company. > Basically, IBM benefits from Linux, so they do a lot of code work, > sometimes working on areas that have been previously neglected. The > better Linux is, the more IBM can sell Linux solutions. > > Subversion has had a lot of problems since version 1.5 has come out. > Basically, the merge/branch tracking isn't that great. In fact, many > people prefer the 1.4 version which doesn't make any pretensions about > tracking branching and merging. > > Meanwhile, many people feel Subversion is past its prime. Many open > source projects are moving from Subversion to Git. Actually, this > makes sense for open source projects, but it is beginning to affect > commercial applications. People are starting to push Git as a > commercial SCM package. > > I recently pointed out on another list that I might recommend a piece > of software I don't think is as good as another piece of software > simply because the "inferior" product plays better with the other > software the company uses and because users are more familiar with it. > > I might not like Git as a commercial version control system, but if > most developers are more familiar with Git than Subversion, and 3rd > party products start integrating with Git in better ways than they > integrate with Subversion, guess what I'm going to start to recommend. > > So far, Subversion isn't being forked, and a fork would not be good > for WANdisco. They are heavily dependent upon people selecting > Subverson as a version control system. What they want to do is fix > some of the underlying issues Subversion has had for the last three > years and get the Subversion project to accept them. I can't see any > reason why the Subversion project would reject them. After all, > Subversion was once run by CollabNet which had commercial interests in > Subversion. Yet, no one complained about CollabNet "dominating" the > project. > > I hope that WANdisco is able to fix many of the issues that have been > plaguing Subversion for years. I don't believe that those who are > leading Subversion have "failed", but that a private company > committing resources to an open source project can be a good thing. > > -- > David Weintraub > qazw...@gmail.com >
