That's where I put my money... a year ago. On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:37:00 PM UTC-7, Lorin Rivers wrote: > > What are the odds for "never"? I'll place a bet on that. > > -- > Lorin Rivers > 512-203-3198 > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 21:20, Ron Stewart <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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)" <[email protected]> >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > 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/-/mnz0b3GpAk8J. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
