Another benefit of open-source is that the patch could be released to
the public as an unofficial patch to 1.6. Those interested enough could
apply the patch whereas those willing to wait can wait.
Shane Turner
Listman wrote:
> the reality is that the release date is arbitrary, 1.6 was supposed to
> be December
> but now its looking like its going to be March. thats the upside of
> working on an
> open-source project, its ready when its ready..
>
> I'd rather wait another month and get this uber-important change in
> that wait
> another 8 months for 1.7
>
> i'm not sure why you're offended that i mention some of the dev's are
> on the
> Collabnet payroll, its a fact and I'm sure that someone at Collabnet
> is sitting
> there wondering how they're going to win a benchmark against Atlassian
> when their underlying engine is an order of magnitude slower.
>
> Sorry if this offends people, but I'm just relaying the facts..
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:30 PM- Feb 16, 2009, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it may sound rude, but nevertheless I answer you: "You get what you
>> paid
>> for."
>>
>> With this background, mentioning the salaries of the collab.net
>> sponsored developpers for subversion is a shame.
>>
>> Also, comparing with a commercial product is inappropriate. Open
>> source
>> always takes longer to come up with a good "product". But is most
>> often
>> the better and much longer lasting one.
>>
>> Additionally, you seem to have a lot of experience in the development,
>> test and release of a bigger software package. Otherwise I can't
>> imagine
>> why you suggest implementing a really major code change simply weeks
>> before release after a several month development period.
>>
>> Sorry for the sarcasm.
>>
>> Ludwig
>>
>>
>> Listman wrote on 17.02.2009 8:06 Uhr:
>>
>>
>>> its just a shame that we've had so much push-back from the svn
>>> developer community
>>> on the issue of performance (do i need to go and dig up that thread
>>> Hyrum?) and now
>>> when someone identifies a root cause and a possible fix it gets
>>> pushed
>>> back another
>>> 6 months.
>>>
>>> performance is the MAIN issue with Subversion, with large wc's
>>> performance
>>> is just horrible.. the Perforce folks look at our performance and
>>> laugh, there are
>>> examples of this all over this list..
>>>
>>> it seems a little arrogant of the developers to ignore this issue,
>>> don't user
>>> concerns count for anything?
>>>
>>> Collabnet are paying the salaries of a number of people on the dev
>>> list, aren't
>>> they concerned that Atlassian are kicking their butts because of this
>>> Subversion
>>> performance issue?
>>>
>>> Am I alone here? Hello?
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1177016
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
>> ].
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1177077
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
>
--
Shane Turner <shane.turner_at_corp.aol.com> | AIM: ShaneTrnr | V: 902-832-2633 | F: 902-832-1015
Assoc. Technical Manager, Voice Services Infrastructure Team
AOL www.aol.com (fmr. InfoInterActive www.infointeractive.com)
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-(+) s: a C++$ ULS++$ P+$>+++ L+(++) !E- W+(++) N o? K--? w O !M !V PS PE Y+ PGP t 5+ X+ R tv b+(++)>++ DI D+ G e++ h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1178816
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-17 14:43:27 CET