re: Size vs Focus WAS RE: ".svn" directory name no good....

Sander Striker (striker@apache.org) wrote:
>
>> We're not big enough to narrow our focus too much I'm thinking.
>
>We can do what we feel is right regardless of our 'size'.

What percentage of the users that use subversion or would use subversion
is it worth ostracizing over a platform specific bug that might possibily
have a relatively easy or safe solution instead of sticking our heads in
the sand?

How soon do we want massive adoption to occur?

At what point do we want to reach critical mass to crstalize subversion into
a viable alternative to CVS, VSS, MKS, PVCS, TLIB and the like instead of a
toy to test out things on?

I'm wondering if that time is now, seeing as we actually now have the Perl boys
using subversion and THEY are Win32 as well as *nix and they will most definitely
have issues if subversion fails on Windows, even if we just think we can wait
until version 1.0.

It's like the svn_import_dirs.pl issue I brought up a while back.

>FWIW, I'd like to stay with .svn at least until 1.0. We can revisit that
>then if it is still posing problems.

If we're on the verge of a massive onslaught of people due to our exposure via
Perl, how long can we seriously wait on something like this that we KNOW is an
issue.

Maybe that's the question we really need to answer.

How badly will this hurt us once we have exposure and how soon will that exposure
take place or has it already?

If we have the time, I agree with you. Let's wait.

If not, we're waiting on a time bomb that will cause subversion to lose any
abillity to galvanize new adoption.

We only need a very small amount of bad press in a stupid magazine like eWeek
to have CIOs turn the other way at the thought of subversion.

Shamim Islam
BA BS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 25 19:05:49 2003