On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:45 AM, TheDO wrote:
Zero GUI improvements ------------------------------------
Although that's not strictly true (for example, recursive revert is only an option for directories) I wouldn't assume there would be major change between 1.0.4 and 1.0.5, since it's just a maintenance update, primarily for Snow Leopard compatibility.
I've been waiting for the Versions team to fix the Update button for months now. It should be available when in any mode.... Timeline/ Browse/Transcript. While this may seem like a trivial issue, just the need to switch to Browse mode in order to do an update and then switch back to Transcript mode from there seems a little silly. I've already been told by a Versions developer that this suggestion will be considered. Why it hasn't yet is beyond me, as it seems like such a simple thing to change.
I agree that this would be nice, and I'm sure it will be done eventually. My first guess would be that it's a matter of priorities. Although it's (usually) easier to change small things than big things, I think the most vocal people are clamoring for merge and could care less about an extra click as long as you can accomplish the task.
In the same conversation, they told me that they're working on several improvements to better streamline the interface and workflow process, but nothing has changed in months.
Of course you mean nothing in the publicly-released versions has reflected such changes. I'm absolutely certain the developer builds have progressed, but we just haven't seen it yet. Regardless, it's working for me quite well as is. Interface improvements will be immediately welcome, but they lack thereof is not really cramping my style.
Has Versions not been generating the revenue that Pico/Sofa expected in order to keep the development resources on the project? It has huge potential in my eyes, but something is falling apart from the top- down. Just look at the Dropbox team for how these projects cangenerate enormous activity and community involvement. They have nearly-daily public betas and a very active development cycle.
To each his own. There are benefits to extremely transparent development processes, but there are also drawbacks. For one thing, community involvement implies moderation/arbitration, which means more manpower. I won't dwell on which is "better", I just accept that Pico/ Sofa has chosen a different development model than Dropbox. Companies succeed with closed models all the time.
I personally disagree that Versions is "falling apart from the top down". You could make such claims between major revisions of any software product. For example, between iLife '06 and iLife '08 people got extremely antsy over what turned out to be no real reason at all. Customer feedback is important, but should not directly drive development, or it results in poorly-designed software with slapped-on features. (Read the last few chapters of "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" by Alan Cooper for the arguments on both sides of this issue.) If Pico/Sofa is taking its sweet time to carefully (re)design the app for new features, I think they're doing the right thing, and everyone will be happier with the result, even though we can't have it right now. On the other hand, if 1.1 / 2.0 were to turn out to be major disappointments, I'd be just as upset as the next person. I'm pretty certain that won't happen, but there's always the unfortunate possibility...
- Quinn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
