Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:21:40PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> [...]
>> After reading everything which has accumulated over night
>> in this thread (from the point of view of my timezone), I get the
>> impression that the following are the options being discussed:
>>
>> 1). Let Mark, Senthil and whoever wants to join their effort
>> create a feature-branch based on 1.5.x.
> [...]
>> To prevent version confusion among our users, vendors are
>> asked to ship binaries compiled from this branch to the general
>> public only if they are explicitly designated as not being based
>> on the official Subversion-1.5.x code, because they contain
>> features not present in stock 1.5.x.
>
> Looking at the experience that people ("user") are not able to
> distinguish between CVS, CVSNT and WinCVS, I doubt people will be able
> to actually distinguish between an "official" and such an "inofficial"
> one.
>
> Note that I do not vote for either of the options - in fact, I am only a
> user, and I doubt I actually am allowed to vote ;) - but I want to
> remind you all that this part might not be as easy as you all hope.
(Vote or no vote, your opinion as a user is valuable -- it isn't the
developers' confusion that is feared by some in this thread.)
The problem is that we have direct evidence that is might very well be just
as easy as we hope. CollabNet ran for many months a merge tracking beta
program prior to the release of 1.5.0, where we made custom builds of
pre-release Subversion, supplied them to anyone who wanted them, and even
put out multiple releases of that stream. The intent was to gather early
access feedback about the new feature, and that's precisely what we did. I
never once got the sense that anyone was confused about which Subversion
they were using. Granted, the user base for the merge tracking beta program
binaries may have been smaller than we anticipate for this current thing (I
really have no idea on this), but on the flip side, this thing is aimed at
specific CollabNet customers of the sort that don't tend to participate in
the open community anyway.
So, I am (and have been) struggling very hard to see a meaningful difference
between what is being proposed here, and what we did in the past. I see
people with direct experience in dealing with vendor releases speaking in
favor of what Mark and Senthil are trying to do, and I see people citing
zero relevant experience with the same speaking against it.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-08-08 15:27:35 CEST