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 > 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 >