Re: who is "we"? project goals (was: Re: Svn as a changeset engine.)

[Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>]

Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> Speaking for myself and Karl, Ben, and Mike, we are focused on the state 1.0
> plan which is going to put us a good ways past "45 days". I suspect that
> many other people in this forum are also working against that plan. I
> suspect that will continue to be the case until you plan to step up to the
> plate and contribute actual code to demonstrate your ideas.

Absolutely!  And...

> And back to "we": I personally plan to avoid a lot of the post-1.0 design
> and planning. I also encourage Karl, Ben, and Mike to avoid post-1.0
> planning in detail, but participation at a high-level is certainly fine.
> (getting bogged down in details hampers our 1.0 efforts) There are a lot of
> other people on this list, and your "we" can certainly encompass them. I
> just want to set your expectation that when you say "we", that you'll only
> peripherally be referring to the CollabNet folks. We've got a focus, and I
> hope that we can retain that. Getting a *solid* 1.0 in people's hands is the
> #1 priority.

...Absolutely as well.

Tom, I've been participating in this discussion to the degree that it
helps clarify my (and others') thinking about future changeset
support.  However, as far as coding time goes, Subversion is on the
right path for 1.0, and we don't plan any significant changes.  It's
just bug fixes and fleshing out features.

If can help within these parameters, then great.  But proposals to
change the course of development *now* to support blue-sky changeset
layers and merging with arch are a waste of your time and ours.

If you don't like any of this, you need to fork the project, OK?

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org