By the way, I have switched to cornerstone and am very satisfied with it. Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2013 13:31:53 UTC+1 schrieb Ron Stewart: > > 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 <ron.s...@gmail.com> 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 <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 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/-/fzHHbOkRn9gJ. 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.
