On 3/9/07, CARASSO Felipe <Felipe.CARASSO@gemalto.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, should Subversive become Eclipse's default SVN plug-in, it may be
> more difficult for Subclipse to keep/increase its presence, but it doesn't
> certainly mean that Subclipse would immediatelly be dead.
>
Just to be clear, when I said it was meaningless, I meant that in the sense
that it does not mean our proposal cannot go forward as well. We had the
opportunity to go to the next level back in November. I did not feel I
could do it because I knew I was going to change jobs and I had no way to
know if I would land at a job where I could still work on Subclipse. I did
not want get the project approved and then quit the project a week later.
None of the other team members had the time available where they felt they
could take the leadership rol, so we decided to hold off on our creation
review. I am now working at CollabNet, so this is no longer an issue.
Eclipse has been clear to us that both projects can exist at this stage, it
is much later in the process when we would need to narrow this to one or the
other, or combine.
> What I've been observing in the past few months in Subclipse and
> Subversive is that Subclipse's proposal is too tied to Subversion itself
>
First off, I always want Subclipse to be tied to Subversion. Second, I
think your perceptions are outdated. Subversive has been clear that they
are moving themselves towards JavaHL because of the licensing issues. That
means they will be faced with the same issues we have. Of course, they will
have the advantage that we have been fixing the issues in Subversion.
while Subversive seems to be really interested in making the Subversion
> experience in Eclipse hassle-free.
>
And we want the experience to be full of hassle? This is just marketing
BS.
Here are my reasons:
>
> While I've seen many requests being shooed away on Subclipse because (1)
> Subversion doesn't implement it, or (2) CVS doesn't have it, or (3) it's too
> difficult to be done or a combination of these, when the same requests are
> presented to Subclipse we get a promise of implementation in about 1 week
> (not the delivery, but the answer : ) the delivery may take some more time,
> of course).
>
> Subversive doesn't care if Subversion doesn't provide an API for this or
> that. They'll work their arses to workaround Subversion limitations in prol
> of the end user. I have to say that this attitude pleases me more than the
> one I get from Subclipse.
>
My impression is that we are way more responsive to them. Maybe I am living
in a dream land. I monitor their forums, I do not see questions getting
answered very well. As Eugene said, we are largely a volunteer project.
Resources come and go. In the end, if we are not meeting your needs and
they are, then you should be using their product. I just wouldn't recommend
you make your decision based on promises as opposed to what is available to
use.\
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on Sat Mar 10 02:03:10 2007