I'm staying subscribed to this thread only because several of us at work have a bet on when Versions will be updated to provide SVN 1.7 support...
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, drukepple wrote: > > Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email > notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if > SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to > me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks > for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out > the way you expect. So long. > > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: >> >> Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement >> would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 >> emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and >> contemplating other apps. >> >> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: >>> >>> We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater >>> than it already is. >>> >>> Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is >>> in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - >>> please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is >>> just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed >>> to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very >>> busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be >>> in the those releases until they have shipped. >>> >>> If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say >>> is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. >>> >>> The gist of this is as follows: >>> >>> * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, >>> we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept >>> telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a >>> polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd >>> rather take longer to make something better than just push something out >>> the door that would make people upset). >>> * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we >>> can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if >>> it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). >>> * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on >>> us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. >>> >>> All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be >>> important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and >>> totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply >>> because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is >>> capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to >>> really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which >>> means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to >>> these apps. >>> >>> My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting >>> absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, >>> complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on >>> everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five >>> full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on >>> five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a >>> great job on them takes time. >>> >>> Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a >>> net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break >>> even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points >>> to heart: >>> >>> * We are crazily in love with our apps >>> * We are working our butts off >>> * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as >>> offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps >>> *ship* and we want them to be amazing. >>> * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting >>> revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product >>> team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps >>> are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that >>> the direct revenue doesn't cover. >>> >>> At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our >>> stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it >>> doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only >>> thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're >>> trying to do. >>> >>> If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to >>> take. Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that >>> people will be interested in trying them out. >>> >>> I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at these >>> projects and ship them on an expedited pace. Unfortunately, this is why >>> being indie is a double-edged sword: we have complete creative control over >>> our apps and can take the time to make them the best they can be, instead >>> of being beholden to some investor that wants us to ship a shitty product >>> as quickly as possible to meet their bottom line, or outright kill a >>> product by selling it to someone that *would* just sit on it to make a >>> quick buck. >>> >>> Really, the only sources of pressure we have to ship something before >>> it's ready are our own finance people, who would love to see the revenue >>> coming in so they could stop pouring money into the product team and put >>> some capital away for our own security, and our existing users, who are >>> understandably frustrated and impatient with the realities of how long this >>> is taking. >>> >>> Everyone else in our own group is beating themselves senseless on our >>> work and would prefer to keep it unreleased until it is ready. >>> >>> We've talked about writing a blog post about this, and we probably >>> should. I don't know if this will make a bit of difference to anyone >>> reading this, but we're working hard, and we truly give a shit about our >>> customers and what we're working on. >>> >>> In any case, as I said, if people are upset about it, feel free to reach >>> out to me directly. I'm the CEO and I'm the responsible party for these >>> decisions, not Jack. >>> >>> -Daniel Pasco, CEO >>> Black Pixel >>> >>> On May 27, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Christian Pleul <chri...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> That support really sucks! Why did you guys ever bought this software... >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On 25.05.2012, at 23:26, "Jack (Black Pixel)" <ja...@blackpixel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi - sorry for the delay in responding. >>> >>> Unfortunately, I don't have any information to share regarding 1.7 >>> support. >>> >>> Jack >>> >>> the Versions team >>> versionsapp.com >>> @versionsapp >>> >>> On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:19:24 AM UTC-7, William Chu wrote: >>>> >>>> When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real >>>> hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less >>>> given this limitation. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Versions" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/wW6C4UDoQ8UJ. >>> To post to this group, send email to vers...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> versions+u...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Versions" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to vers...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> versions+u...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/KduvQQJ4xA0J. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
