RE: [Subclipse-users] Incorrect EclipseZone Post

Hi Mark,
 
(...)

    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.
 

    This may be a drawback of answering too fast to a message, specially when there's the risk of a personal feeling being read
between the lines.

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.
 

    I kept the entire history above just to illustrate that reading jump ups such as "marketing BS" as reply to what someone states
is what motivates what I said about the lack of interest on understanding what people say.
 
    Of course that it demands more energy to try to put feelings aside when there's a critic. But what I insist in saying is that
the kind of answer above drives people that are interested in contributing, even if with just suggestions, away. The communication
I'm getting from Subversive, in the other hand, tries very hard to pass the message that suggestions are absolutelly always welcome.

 
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.
 

    That was not one of the cases when it felt like you were completely blocking a request. I'd gladly continue the discussion about
the svn:externals issue in another thread, if you're interested.
 
    There were some other issues that had a very negative feedback from you where the message would sound like "Subclipse will never
do that". At least once it sounded like it would be very unlikely that you'd accept a patch for it. The following one is one
example, but it's not the harshest one:
 

--
From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp@softlanding.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:24 AM
To: users@subclipse.tigris.org
Subject: RE: [Subclipse-users] Why doI have upcoming changes after a commit?(single user)
 
(...)
> >  I cannot see considering something like this.
(...)
I would review a patch but cannot imagine accepting it, although you never know.
 
Mark
-- 
 
    Another interesting issue was the branches/tags/trunk support. Subversive implemented it in quite a meaningful way since 1.1.0,
I believe. And their "Tag" support looks like tagging, not just like a SVN copy.
 
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. 
    I'm really very happy to hear that (try to take that to heart).
 
    I don't know how Firefox does. I have to admint that I don't participate on its community, since it's a product that already
addresses all my expectations (even if by the means of other people's extensions).
 
    I do think that just saying "no" without showing interest on understanding the motivation of the request is not very productive.
After two or three attempts to convince you otherwise, I think people just gives up on trying. Good thing there are people like
Eugene Kuleshov that never give up.
 
Best regards,
    Felipe