List Info

Thread: RE: Incorrect EclipseZone Post
RE: Incorrect EclipseZone Post
user name
 2007-03-12 08:57:46 

  


  

    Hi Eugene, Mark,

 



    About my mistake on the two 
Subclipses:


 







  

  
Here 
  are my reasons:

  
 


  
While I've seen many requests 
  being shooed away on Subclipse because (1) Subversion doesn't 
  implement it, or (2) CVS doesn't have it, or (3) it's too difficult to be done 
  or a combination of these, when the same requests are presented to Subclipse 
  we get a promise of implementation in about 1 week (not the delivery, but the 
  answer : ) the delivery may take some more time, of 
  course).

  
 

  
Subversive 
  doesn't care if Subversion doesn't provide an API for this or that. They'll 
  work their arses to workaround Subversion limitations in prol of the end user. 
  I have to say that this attitude pleases me more than the one I get from 
  Subclipse.



    The second Subclipse should read Subversive. 
"(...) when the same requests are presented to _Subversive_ 
(...)".


 



    About:



 



  

  

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.
 



  

    
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  Second, I think your perceptions are outdated.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.



  
 


  

    

    
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.


 



    I'm not affiliated to Subversive or 
Polarion in any way, I'm just a happy user. And my happiness is explained 
below:



  

    
Here 
    are my reasons:

    
 


    
While I've seen many requests 
    being shooed away on Subclipse because (1) Subversion doesn't 
    implement it, or (2) CVS doesn't have it, or (3) it's too difficult to be 
    done or a combination of these, when the same requests are presented to 
    Subclipse we get a promise of implementation in about 1 week (not the 
    delivery, but the answer : ) the delivery may take some more time, of 
    course).

    
 ;

    
Subversive doesn't care if Subversion doesn't provide an 
    API for this or that. They'll work their arses to workaround Subversion 
    limitations in prol of the end user. I have to say that this attitude 
    pleases me more than the one I get from 
    Subclipse.

  

My impression is that we are way 
  more responsive to them. ; Maybe I am living in a dream land. ; I 
  monitor their forums, I do not see questions getting answered very well. ; 
  As Eugene said, we are largely a volunteer project.  Resources come and 
  go.  In the end, if we are not meeting your needs and they are, then you 
  should be using their product. I just wouldn't recommend you make your 
  decision based on promises as opposed to what is available to use. 

  
 


    Their users list is not very 
busy and nobody can beat you on reply speed. 


 



    But in the case when a new feature is requested, being 
the fastest to say "I won't do it" (and worse, sometimes I saw "I won't accept a 
patch for it") doesn't help at all.


 



    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.


 



    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.


 



Best 
regards,


    Felipe



 

  

  
  
   
     
    

  

    Re:  Incorrect EclipseZone Post
  


  

     user name

     2007-03-12 09:34:43
  


  

    

  


  

    On 3/12/07, CARASSO Felipe < Felipe.CARASSOgemalto.com">Felipe.CARASSOgemalto.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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I am now working at CollabNet, so this is no longer an 
  issue.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
 


   ; 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.&nbsp; 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&#39;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.&nbsp; Subversive has been clear 
  that they are moving themselves towards JavaHL because of the licensing 
  issues.&nbsp; 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. 
 


 &nbsp;  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.&nbsp; I was speaking more generally though.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They certainly seem to have backed away from some of their original ideas on things like merge, which never really worked right.

&nbsp;


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?&nbsp; This is just 
  marketing BS. &nbsp; 


  
 


 &nbsp;  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.&nbsp; If anything, I would think that challenging someones request shows an interest.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I only recall saying that once or twice over the years.&nbsp; I might have said the barrier to getting a patch accepted would be high.


 &nbsp;  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.


 



 &nbsp;  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.&nbsp;


 



 &nbsp;  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.&nbsp; At the same time, my view is a lot like that of Firefox.&nbsp; I try to say no first and be convinced later as I think that is the best way to make a good product.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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/

  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1-2]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )