I'm a lurker, but I want to chime in on this... I've been watching this
whole discussion for weeks without any clue as to why in the world it is
happening.
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 17:02, Tom Lord wrote:
> But please do consider stabilizing on a much simpler milestone, much
> sooner. Pick the low-hanging fruit. If nothing else, it will help
> the project pick up more volunteers, bug searching, bug fixing, etc.
If I may say, Subversion *is* picking the low-hanging fruit. They are
making a CVS replacement with a better infrastructure. Period.
Changesets and GUIs and abstractions are all something that can be
worked out later, but a 1-for-1 CVS replacement without the RCS cruft is
something that is useful *right now*, and lets shops continue on. There
are many people that are 99% happily using CVS but hitting annoyances in
simple things like renaming files. They will be much happier to have
something workable that doesn't require re-architecting their source
management.
> You'd think that simplifying the 1.0 agenda in light of deeper
> understanding of the technology plus current events in the wacky wacky
> world of revision control would be an attractive option to consider.
> Let's find a short-term plan to kill BK, for example.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to accomplish. You keep trying
to help the Subversion team "find a plan" when they've already got one,
have stuck to it, and have created what appears to be a fairly elegant
solution to it. Post-1.0 will allow for the extension of those goals.
> You say yourself that, under current plans, 1.0 is far more than 45
> days away. But you've also agreed that there are applications, like
> the wiki hack, that are worth doing and that can be largely done with
> just what's there already.
Sure, and if the Subversion project was an open-source project for
finding new ways of creating "living" interactive documents, they could
stop there, but Subversion is about a simple, usable SCM that enhances
the way current CVS users work.
> Ob Free Software Nut Comment: BitMover is actively sabotaging the
> free software community -- the community is in crisis. There are
> ethical reasons to step away from your current plans.
To me, it seems like you're trying to "actively sabotage" Subversion
just as it's coming to a 1.0 point -- the point at which people like me
will start using it for real work rather than just evaluating it as a
nice technology that we can try out soon.
There's 2 sides to the Open Source thing. One side is, you have every
right to come on the list and make suggestions. The other side is for
people like me to be able to say, "If you don't like it, fork it, but
don't expect the Subversion team to step back and make deep
architectural changes a month and a half before the code freeze date."
Code freeze != feature freeze. They *know* what they want in 1.0, and I
can't imagine any argument that's come up so far that is important
enough to change that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 16 00:15:00 2002