On 3/12/07, CARASSO Felipe <Felipe.CARASSO@gemalto.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks for making that clear, Mark. Before, It did sound like an
> attempt to discredit the competition.
>
I definitely should have taken the time to be more clear in my original
post. I have never said that I did not think Subversive was a good
product. I was trying to respond more to the thoughts that some people
interpreted this announcement as their project had been chosen in place of
ours. I just wanted to say that this was just a fairly meaningless step in
the Eclipse process and that our proposal can still take this step if we
choose to. Even my use of the word meaningless is probably bad. Obviously
it is not meaningless, or we would have taken the step. It is simply that
the criteria to make this step in the process is fairly simple and not a lot
of resistance is generally applied at this part of the process by the
foundation.
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 think your perceptions are outdated.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.
>
>
> I don't think my perceptions are outdated. I have been using
> Subversive since the second time I've heard you say "that's how CVS does" or
> "there's no API support on Subversive to that". I don't think that moving to
> JavaHL is going to make them give up on their attempt to workaround
> Subversion's limitations. The "svn:externals version freeze on tag" issue is
> the latest example of that, and it's not 3 weeks old.
>
There are some fair criticisms there. I was speaking more generally
though. A lot of the differences between Subclipse and Subversive exist
because they were willing to base their code on the capabilities of a custom
version of JavaSVN and we have decided we will stay pretty close to JavaHL.
What I was getting at is that they have been clearly moving towards JavaHL
as well, and have pretty much said that their Eclipse proposal will be based
on it. I sort of expect them to start to remove some of the bits that
required that custom version of JavaSVN in the version they make available
to Eclipse. They certainly seem to have backed away from some of their
original ideas on things like merge, which never really worked right.
> 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.
>
>
> It may be better for Subclipse if you show some more interest on
> understanding other people's perspectives. Of course this is all volunteer
> work (or has been until now) and you're free to do whatever you want with
> your project. But if your interest is seeing more people happy with it,
> hearing people would help.
>
This seems a little unfair or at least overstated. I do not think that
offering opinion back on a topic means that I am not interested in hearing
peoples ideas. If anything, I would think that challenging someones request
shows an interest. I could just ignore the mail altogether. By offering an
objection, I am laying out my opinion and giving the person the opportunity
to counter. Eugene Kuleshov has changed my opinion on a number of issues
over the years and it was user feedback that led to our custom tags
implementation, something which Subversive still does not have anything like
it to match.
On the issue of freezing svn:externals, I have simply said that I think this
is a feature that should exist in Subversion and be exposed to us in the
API. I do not think I said I would reject a patch. I only recall saying
that once or twice over the years. I might have said the barrier to getting
a patch accepted would be high.
Their responsiveness comes when an issue is filled through their
> subversive-bugs list. I had quite a few filled and got something that felt
> like a personal treatment. Some were delivered in a week. Every time they
> showed interest in understanding the problem and my needs, proposing
> workarounds while the fix wasn't available.
>
That is good to hear.
To me, that's the dream land. And yet, it's real.
>
> It's not because I'm currently using Subversive that I don't care
> anymore about Subclipse. Being in this list and bothering to write what I'm
> writting should prove that. I think that having more than one option is very
> healthy, and it may happen that when we get to need something very
> important, Subclipse will implement it and Subversive won't, although given
> the history of both that sounds a bit unlikely.
>
> I just wish that Subclipse would show a little more care than it
> currently is. I'm sure that everyone would profit from that.
>
Hopefully I will have more time to devote to the project in the future, and
I will try to take that to heart. At the same time, my view is a lot like
that of Firefox. I try to say no first and be convinced later as I think
that is the best way to make a good product. It is not always the most
user-friendly policy, but I think when you view it from the perspective of
all users it leads to the best product. The point is that this is not a
dictatorship, it is a community. What I say is an opinion and I welcome
being convinced to change my mind. I have shown in the past that it really
is not that hard to do either.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on Mon Mar 12 15:34:55 2007