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 Subversion better ... I look forward to it! Cheers, Johan On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:20 AM, David Richards <da...@wandisco.com> wrote: > 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 > volume, speed or participation on the project right now". This is not new - > it's been a criticism since 2007. In fact these [fundamental] requirements > have been around and published since then. What we are saying, in fact, is > that Subversion cannot live in a vacuum - there is no point in us > complaining about a lack of action. That will achieve *nothing* about from > wasting time. As I say at the outset "We are not doing this for direct > commercial reasons. We are doing this to protect the future of Subversion. > We are doing this because we care. We are doing this because we need to. We > are doing this because it is the right thing to do." > > 2. On the question of the road-map / commit logs. Firstly WC-NG, httpv2 etc > were already in train and we were already working on those things. Julian > Foad, for example, one of our core developers was actually a long way into > obliterate but he *had* to switch over to 1.7. I therefore don't regard 1.7 > as an issue with the road-map. There are more immediate issues that *must* > be tackled now, ideally in parallel associated with branching & merging. > Developers are working hard but there simply aren't enough of us, for > whatever reason, *actively* working on the project right now. Not > a criticism - just a fact of life. > 3. On the question about "answering questions on user lists". Note I did say > "Blogging, or answering questions on user lists are important" Active user > lists are a good measure of an open source project and so is commits. I have > already received several offers to help code and that is *very* much > appreciated. > 4. "unscrupulous committers decide to commit trivial changes in large files > to simply get their stats up." I'm not going to go into that here but I > repeat that the best way to create open source developers is by hiring great > people who create wonderful source code. The core developers of Subversion, > in my experience, are amazing individuals who maintain and create the best > SCM product on the planet I am *not* repeat *not* criticizing or setting any > of you / them in a bad light. that will *never* happen. > Johan, I hope this set's the record straight. We knew that by doing this > that we would open ourselves up to criticism. > We have tried alternative paths to effect change on the project but we feel > that now it the time to act. > Feel free to contact me directly and I am more than happy to talk directly > with you. > - David > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:32 PM, David Richards <da...@wandisco.com> >> wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > David, >> > Absolutely correct! >> > Your analysis / explanation is much better than my own. Thank you. >> > - David >> > >> >> I like the "call for action", and the intention to invest more in the >> development of Subversion. However, I do not like the blog entry. I >> may be overly sensitive to this kind of thing, but I'm rather >> antagonized by the paragraph "Hang on a Minute! Didn’t the Community >> Just Announce A Road Map?". >> >> I can feel the frustration with the lack of progress (or translated >> frustration of Wandisco's big customers). I understand this >> frustration (I feel it too sometimes), and the desire to do something >> about it (that's why I got involved myself). However, this paragraph >> has an undertone of blaming it on lack of involvement/dedication by >> the community and developers, and bad behavior by some developers. >> >> This is not a good way to motivate the community positively to work >> with you, it's a negative message. At least that's how it sounds to me >> (admittedly, I may not have the full picture of all that's going on, >> but so do probably most readers of the blog). >> >> I'm specifically talking about the following sentences: >> >> - In answer to the question "Didn't the community just announce a road >> map?": "Yes they did, but that’s pretty much all that happened (and >> that really pisses us off.) " >> >> What? I'm subscribed to the dev-list and the commits-list for that >> last year and a half, and I've seen a *ton* of work being done. Yes, >> it can always be more/better/faster or more predictable, but it's not >> that nothing has been done. And I always thought it was kind of >> obvious that work on new stuff from the roadmap would have to wait for >> 1.7 to be finished. Ok, 1.7 is slipping, but it seems it was harder >> than anticipated. Regardless, I see a lot of people working hard. So >> I'd just say: thanks to all the people who keep up the good work. >> >> >> - "The commit logs (code committed by developers to the project) tell >> the real story. We are not happy with the volume, speed or >> participation on the project right now. " >> >> I know (hope) you're probably not criticizing all those volunteers >> spending their free time on Subversion, but it can be read that way. >> As a participant in the user community, and beginning contributor >> dev-wise, I feel kind of personally attacked by your unhappiness with >> my lack of participation. >> >> >> - "Blogging, or answering questions on user lists are important, but >> so is writing source code." >> >> Ok, the software needs to work, and features need to be developed. But >> I do hope you're not down-playing answering questions on the user >> list. I can't stress enough how important this list is to a lot of >> users (and how many people put in countless hours to help out others). >> Also, I think it's great that there are some developers who follow the >> users list closely, answering some difficult user questions with >> detailed explanations, backed by knowledge of svn internals. Ok, >> that's time they aren't spending on coding, but IMHO it's time very >> well spent. >> >> >> - "We also believe it’s unhelpful when certain unscrupulous committers >> decide to commit trivial changes in large files to simply get their >> stats up. That behavior has no place in any open source project; it’s >> a bad form and wastes everyone’s valuable time." >> >> What? What are you talking about? I have seen nothing of the sort. Ok, >> as I said, I only see part of the picture, so I might have missed >> something. But even if it's true to some extent, I don't think it's a >> good idea to make some vague accusations about it in this way. It puts >> all committers in a bad light. Besides, even if this were the case, is >> it really that big of a deal? >> >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Johan > > -- Johan