You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by ma...@apache.org on 2010/10/19 22:21:08 UTC
svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Author: markphip
Date: Tue Oct 19 20:21:07 2010
New Revision: 1024394
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1024394&view=rev
Log:
* publish/packages.html
(centos, suse): Add CollabNet downloads.
Modified:
subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Modified: subversion/site/publish/packages.html
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/packages.html?rev=1024394&r1=1024393&r2=1024394&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/site/publish/packages.html (original)
+++ subversion/site/publish/packages.html Tue Oct 19 20:21:07 2010
@@ -83,6 +83,11 @@
<div class="package" style="background-image: url('/images/centos.png');">
<ul>
+<li><p><a href="http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html">
+ CollabNet</a> (professionally supported and certified by
+ <a href="http://www.collab.net/subversion"
+ >CollabNet</a>)</p>
+</li>
<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads?type=centos">
WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
<a href="http://www.wandisco.com/"
@@ -316,6 +321,11 @@ $ make install clean</pre>
<div class="package" style="background-image: url('/images/suse.png');">
<ul>
+<li><p><a href="http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html">
+ CollabNet</a> (professionally supported and certified by
+ <a href="http://www.collab.net/subversion"
+ >CollabNet</a>)</p>
+</li>
<li><p><a href="http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=ALL&p=1&q=subversion"
>OpenSUSE build service</a> (OpenSUSE and SLES, i586/x86_64)</p>
</li>
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
We have always supported CentOS, I simply had not noticed that you had
added a section for it. Given that anyone that uses CentOS knows that
it is a clone of Red Hat it seems redundant to even have that section
and I would be in favor of removing it entirely.
The answer for SuSE is more complicated. Our Linux binaries are known
to work on SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian. All of our developers are
using one of these distros. In the past, I chose not to spam the
packages list and only include the platforms we officially qualify
with every release and officially support. We added support for SuSE
to CollabNet Subversion Edge and that is why I added it. So that part
is true.
I have a problem with "vanilla packages" and what that means. We are
providing the same plain Apache and Subversion binaries we always
have. The source code that goes into the binaries, and our build
scripts to produce them, are all provided and available online. Why
is it OK to provide these binaries with a Python script to help set
them up. but not OK to provide them with a simple web UI that does the
same? In either case the user can choose to download or not download,
and once they have downloaded to use or not use. In other words, just
as you could use our binaries without running the Python script to
configure them, you can also use our binaries without running the web
UI to configure them. I fail to see why there should be any
distinction in terms of what users can download.
The "vanilla packages" are still available. For command line client
users, they are right there on the same page. For someone wanting the
old package that includes Apache/ViewVC and Python script that is
available on link from same page "looking for previous versions".
But again, it is true that we have not claimed to officially support
SuSE with these packages.
Mark
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> [ This is going to come off rather biased, given my affiliations, so
> I'd appreciate some additional comments. ]
>
> From http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html, I noticed
> that CollabNet only offers downloads of CollabNet Subversion Edge for
> Centos and Suse, but not vanilla Subversion packages for those
> platforms. I'd prefer if our packages page linked only to packages of
> Subversion, not packages of Subversion+other stuff. Maybe that means
> we reevaluate VisualSVN on that page as well.
>
> Thoughts? Bikesheds?
>
> -Hyrum
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: markphip
>> Date: Tue Oct 19 20:21:07 2010
>> New Revision: 1024394
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1024394&view=rev
>> Log:
>> * publish/packages.html
>>
>> (centos, suse): Add CollabNet downloads.
>>
>> Modified:
>> subversion/site/publish/packages.html
>>
>> Modified: subversion/site/publish/packages.html
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/packages.html?rev=1024394&r1=1024393&r2=1024394&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- subversion/site/publish/packages.html (original)
>> +++ subversion/site/publish/packages.html Tue Oct 19 20:21:07 2010
>> @@ -83,6 +83,11 @@
>> <div class="package" style="background-image: url('/images/centos.png');">
>>
>> <ul>
>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html">
>> + CollabNet</a> (professionally supported and certified by
>> + <a href="http://www.collab.net/subversion"
>> + >CollabNet</a>)</p>
>> +</li>
>> <li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads?type=centos">
>> WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
>> <a href="http://www.wandisco.com/"
>> @@ -316,6 +321,11 @@ $ make install clean</pre>
>> <div class="package" style="background-image: url('/images/suse.png');">
>>
>> <ul>
>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html">
>> + CollabNet</a> (professionally supported and certified by
>> + <a href="http://www.collab.net/subversion"
>> + >CollabNet</a>)</p>
>> +</li>
>> <li><p><a href="http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=ALL&p=1&q=subversion"
>> >OpenSUSE build service</a> (OpenSUSE and SLES, i586/x86_64)</p>
>> </li>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 10/29/2010 05:29 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I've added note to the packages that requires registration in r1028656.
Thanks, Ivan.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 16:42, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:11:20 -0400:
>> On 10/27/2010 09:41 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> > 2. Let's think about users: they have different needs for Subversion:
>> > just a client, client and server etc. There are different packages to
>> > get Subversion to be installed and running. Some comes with just a zip
>> > archive, others have some installation and configuration scripts.
>> > That's what customers looking for.
>> >
>> > 3. From my point of view, it is more important for users to explicitly
>> > mark packages that requires registration and email for download.
>>
>> Agreed. There's no need for our package descriptions to be anemic to the
>> point of uselessness. Let the descriptions state exactly what folks will be
>> getting (objectively -- this is not a playground for Marketing departments).
>> I also agree that it makes sense to note those downloads for which
>> "Registration is required". As a user, I'd want to know that stuff up
>> front, too.
>>
>
> +1 to this direction.
>
I've added note to the packages that requires registration in r1028656.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 17:00, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:17:39 -0400:
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:42, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> >...
>> > As the page stands now, the "professionally supported and certified" is
>> > just lots of words that add nothing over "maintained by". And
>> > information-freeness is Bad.
>>
>> I disagree on this one. "Maintained by Jeremy Whitlock" says something
>> *very* different from "professionally supported by X".
>>
>
> What does it add over going to the maintainer's page and seeing if
> they're doing this as a hobby or as a business plan?
>
> For example, if I were to produce binaries for the public, what difference
> would it make whether or not I labeled them as "professionally supported
> and certified"?
For a given platform, if there are several providers, and I'm
*looking* for support, then having that on the set of links tells me
where to go. If I'm simply downloading a tarball, then any link will
do.
If you want to characterize your hobbyist tarball as "professionally
supported", then that would be fine, and we should do it. I can
certainly imagine some folks may be interested in a little
side/support income. And so we can list that, and let the
user/customer decide which person/organization would work best for
their support needs.
Cheers,
-g
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:17:39 -0400:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:42, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >...
> > As the page stands now, the "professionally supported and certified" is
> > just lots of words that add nothing over "maintained by". And
> > information-freeness is Bad.
>
> I disagree on this one. "Maintained by Jeremy Whitlock" says something
> *very* different from "professionally supported by X".
>
What does it add over going to the maintainer's page and seeing if
they're doing this as a hobby or as a business plan?
For example, if I were to produce binaries for the public, what difference
would it make whether or not I labeled them as "professionally supported
and certified"?
>
> (the "certified" thing has been a bit weird to me for a while, but not
> enough to push more than occasionally)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:17:39 -0400:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:42, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >...
> > As the page stands now, the "professionally supported and certified" is
> > just lots of words that add nothing over "maintained by". And
> > information-freeness is Bad.
>
> I disagree on this one. "Maintained by Jeremy Whitlock" says something
> *very* different from "professionally supported by X".
>
What does it add over going to the maintainer's page and seeing if
they're doing this as a hobby or as a business plan?
For example, if I were to produce binaries for the public, what difference
would it make whether or not I labeled them as "professionally supported
and certified"?
>
> (the "certified" thing has been a bit weird to me for a while, but not
> enough to push more than occasionally)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:42, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>...
> As the page stands now, the "professionally supported and certified" is
> just lots of words that add nothing over "maintained by". And
> information-freeness is Bad.
I disagree on this one. "Maintained by Jeremy Whitlock" says something
*very* different from "professionally supported by X".
(the "certified" thing has been a bit weird to me for a while, but not
enough to push more than occasionally)
Cheers,
-g
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:11:20 -0400:
> On 10/27/2010 09:41 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > 2. Let's think about users: they have different needs for Subversion:
> > just a client, client and server etc. There are different packages to
> > get Subversion to be installed and running. Some comes with just a zip
> > archive, others have some installation and configuration scripts.
> > That's what customers looking for.
> >
> > 3. From my point of view, it is more important for users to explicitly
> > mark packages that requires registration and email for download.
>
> Agreed. There's no need for our package descriptions to be anemic to the
> point of uselessness. Let the descriptions state exactly what folks will be
> getting (objectively -- this is not a playground for Marketing departments).
> I also agree that it makes sense to note those downloads for which
> "Registration is required". As a user, I'd want to know that stuff up
> front, too.
>
+1 to this direction.
As the page stands now, the "professionally supported and certified" is
just lots of words that add nothing over "maintained by". And
information-freeness is Bad.
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 10/27/2010 09:41 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> 2. Let's think about users: they have different needs for Subversion:
> just a client, client and server etc. There are different packages to
> get Subversion to be installed and running. Some comes with just a zip
> archive, others have some installation and configuration scripts.
> That's what customers looking for.
>
> 3. From my point of view, it is more important for users to explicitly
> mark packages that requires registration and email for download.
Agreed. There's no need for our package descriptions to be anemic to the
point of uselessness. Let the descriptions state exactly what folks will be
getting (objectively -- this is not a playground for Marketing departments).
I also agree that it makes sense to note those downloads for which
"Registration is required". As a user, I'd want to know that stuff up
front, too.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 01:56, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> [ This is going to come off rather biased, given my affiliations, so
> I'd appreciate some additional comments. ]
>
> From http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html, I noticed
> that CollabNet only offers downloads of CollabNet Subversion Edge for
> Centos and Suse, but not vanilla Subversion packages for those
> platforms. I'd prefer if our packages page linked only to packages of
> Subversion, not packages of Subversion+other stuff. Maybe that means
> we reevaluate VisualSVN on that page as well.
>
> Thoughts? Bikesheds?
>
1. What is the definition of "vanilla" Subversion package? For example
WANDisco's distribution for Windows comes with Apache HTTPD and GPL-ed
(!) TortoiseSVN. All package is 32MB size, while Subversion binaries
are only 10% of package's size. It requires Microsoft .NET Framework
2.0 to be pre-installed. Is it considered to be a vanilla Subversion
package or not?
2. Let's think about users: they have different needs for Subversion:
just a client, client and server etc. There are different packages to
get Subversion to be installed and running. Some comes with just a zip
archive, others have some installation and configuration scripts.
That's what customers looking for.
3. From my point of view, it is more important for users to explicitly
mark packages that requires registration and email for download.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
[ This is going to come off rather biased, given my affiliations, so
I'd appreciate some additional comments. ]
Re: svn commit: r1024394 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
[ This is going to come off rather biased, given my affiliations, so
I'd appreciate some additional comments. ]
>From http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html, I noticed
that CollabNet only offers downloads of CollabNet Subversion Edge for
Centos and Suse, but not vanilla Subversion packages for those
platforms. I'd prefer if our packages page linked only to packages of
Subversion, not packages of Subversion+other stuff. Maybe that means
we reevaluate VisualSVN on that page as well.
Thoughts? Bikesheds?
-Hyrum
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: markphip
> Date: Tue Oct 19 20:21:07 2010
> New Revision: 1024394
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1024394&view=rev
> Log:
> * publish/packages.html
>
> (centos, suse): Add CollabNet downloads.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/site/publish/packages.html
>
> Modified: subversion/site/publish/packages.html
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/packages.html?rev=1024394&r1=1024393&r2=1024394&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/site/publish/packages.html (original)
> +++ subversion/site/publish/packages.html Tue Oct 19 20:21:07 2010
> @@ -83,6 +83,11 @@
> <div class="package" style="background-image: url('/images/centos.png');">
>
> <ul>
> +<li><p><a href="http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html">
> + CollabNet</a> (professionally supported and certified by
> + <a href="http://www.collab.net/subversion"
> + >CollabNet</a>)</p>
> +</li>
> <li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads?type=centos">
> WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
> <a href="http://www.wandisco.com/"
> @@ -316,6 +321,11 @@ $ make install clean</pre>
> <div class="package" style="background-image: url('/images/suse.png');">
>
> <ul>
> +<li><p><a href="http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/redhat.html">
> + CollabNet</a> (professionally supported and certified by
> + <a href="http://www.collab.net/subversion"
> + >CollabNet</a>)</p>
> +</li>
> <li><p><a href="http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=ALL&p=1&q=subversion"
> >OpenSUSE build service</a> (OpenSUSE and SLES, i586/x86_64)</p>
> </li>
>
>
>