Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Seems like a fairly safe bet to me, given that all communication from the Versions side has stopped. Good job killing off a perfectly sellable and well written piece of software. On 11.01.2013, at 07:37, Lorin Rivers lriv...@mosasaur.com wrote: What are the odds for never? I'll place a bet on that. -- Lorin Rivers 512-203-3198 On Jan 10, 2013, at 21:20, Ron Stewart ron.stew...@gmail.com wrote: I'm staying subscribed to this thread only because several of us at work have a bet on when Versions will be updated to provide SVN 1.7 support... On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, drukepple wrote: Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out the way you expect. So long. On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: Just another ping on svn 1.7 support -- even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps. On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
By the way, I have switched to cornerstone and am very satisfied with it. Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2013 13:31:53 UTC+1 schrieb Ron Stewart: That's where I put my money... a year ago. On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:37:00 PM UTC-7, Lorin Rivers wrote: What are the odds for never? I'll place a bet on that. -- Lorin Rivers 512-203-3198 On Jan 10, 2013, at 21:20, Ron Stewart ron.s...@gmail.com wrote: I'm staying subscribed to this thread only because several of us at work have a bet on when Versions will be updated to provide SVN 1.7 support... On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, drukepple wrote: Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out the way you expect. So long. On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps. On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Yeah, me, too... I also looked at SmartSVN, but given its price at that point (although it has dropped significantly since being moved over to WanDisco), but chose Cornerstone and have not regretted it at all. On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:27:17 AM UTC-7, Alex Seeholzer wrote: By the way, I have switched to cornerstone and am very satisfied with it. Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2013 13:31:53 UTC+1 schrieb Ron Stewart: That's where I put my money... a year ago. On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:37:00 PM UTC-7, Lorin Rivers wrote: What are the odds for never? I'll place a bet on that. -- Lorin Rivers 512-203-3198 On Jan 10, 2013, at 21:20, Ron Stewart ron.s...@gmail.com wrote: I'm staying subscribed to this thread only because several of us at work have a bet on when Versions will be updated to provide SVN 1.7 support... On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, drukepple wrote: Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out the way you expect. So long. On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps. On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out the way you expect. So long. On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps. On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're trying to do. If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to take. Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that people will be interested in trying them out. I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at these projects and ship them on an expedited pace. Unfortunately, this is why being indie is a double-edged sword: we have complete creative control over our apps and can take the time to make them the best they can be, instead of being beholden to some investor that
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Same here. I want to tell the Versions support team that without their terrific app, my team never would have adopted version control. Versions allowed us to get the designers to adopt it without much fuss and after we were saved from a few disasters there was no going back. Thank you. On 1/10/13 3:51 PM, drukepple wrote: Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out the way you expect. So long. On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps. On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps. On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're trying to do. If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to take. Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that people will be interested in trying them out. I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at these projects and ship them on an expedited pace. Unfortunately, this is why being indie is a double-edged sword: we have complete creative control over our apps and can take the time to make them the best they can be, instead of being beholden to some investor that wants us to ship a shitty product as quickly as possible to meet their bottom line, or outright kill a product by selling it to someone that *would* just sit on it to make a quick buck. Really, the only sources of pressure we have to ship something before it's ready are our own finance people, who would love to see the revenue coming in so they could stop pouring money into the product team and put some capital away for our own security, and our existing users, who
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Not only have I moved on from Versions, I've moved on from Subversion and on to Git. If you have the option, try it. You'll like it, once you get the hang of it -- although that can take a while if you're used to SVN. And if you need a nice GUI for Git, SourceTree is pretty full-featured and free. http://www.sourcetreeapp.com (and it's made by Atlassian, so it doesn't suck and sees regular updates) I think it's time to abandon ship. I was still getting daily summaries for this list...but it's time to cut the cord. Versions was good while it lasted. It didn't last very long, unfortunately. On Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:44:56 AM UTC-6, Ron Stewart wrote: I agree... I've written this one off. I've moved to Cornerstone on two of my Macs, and Syntevo's free foundation version of their SmartSVN client on my other Mac and my Linux boxes. Both of those are decent or better as SVN clients with v1.7 support, and they've been there for about 8 months. On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:37:29 PM UTC-6, Ryan wrote: I've made the move to cornerstone. I'm pissed that Versions isn't up to date on this after parting with the money. I should have got a 5-license with cornerstone to begin with. It's the 19th of August! On Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:19:24 AM UTC+8, William Chu wrote: When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less given this limitation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/B1hMPyNaTYgJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Has anybody gotten a response to a refund request? I wrote Dan and haven't heard back from anybody as of yet.. Am Donnerstag, 16. August 2012 11:44:56 UTC+2 schrieb Ron Stewart: I agree... I've written this one off. I've moved to Cornerstone on two of my Macs, and Syntevo's free foundation version of their SmartSVN client on my other Mac and my Linux boxes. Both of those are decent or better as SVN clients with v1.7 support, and they've been there for about 8 months. On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:37:29 PM UTC-6, Ryan wrote: I've made the move to cornerstone. I'm pissed that Versions isn't up to date on this after parting with the money. I should have got a 5-license with cornerstone to begin with. It's the 19th of August! On Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:19:24 AM UTC+8, William Chu wrote: When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less given this limitation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/up5txdtSnHYJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
I completely agree and will also write Dan about getting a refund. I bought this and was able to use it for two weeks roughly, then the 1.7 update hit us here. Been waiting for a Versions update ever since, in vain as we all know here. Am Mittwoch, 15. August 2012 23:58:08 UTC+2 schrieb GJ: Its August, Mountain Lion has shipped, and still no 1.7 support? It's extra disappointing that there's still no update. I don't think any existing customers are asking for new functionality - just compatibility so that we can keep working. Zav's backhand bragging and Mr. CEO's brain dump with just enough profanity to convey passion without being overtly offensive aside, this situation is unacceptable. I've lost faith and feel a bit cheated and abandoned and I want my money back. I'll be sending an email to you directly shortly, Dan. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/fYbXCjLsBLgJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
I agree... I've written this one off. I've moved to Cornerstone on two of my Macs, and Syntevo's free foundation version of their SmartSVN client on my other Mac and my Linux boxes. Both of those are decent or better as SVN clients with v1.7 support, and they've been there for about 8 months. On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:37:29 PM UTC-6, Ryan wrote: I've made the move to cornerstone. I'm pissed that Versions isn't up to date on this after parting with the money. I should have got a 5-license with cornerstone to begin with. It's the 19th of August! On Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:19:24 AM UTC+8, William Chu wrote: When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less given this limitation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/XucZlAyfrdwJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Its August, Mountain Lion has shipped, and still no 1.7 support? It's extra disappointing that there's still no update. I don't think any existing customers are asking for new functionality - just compatibility so that we can keep working. Zav's backhand bragging and Mr. CEO's brain dump with just enough profanity to convey passion without being overtly offensive aside, this situation is unacceptable. I've lost faith and feel a bit cheated and abandoned and I want my money back. I'll be sending an email to you directly shortly, Dan. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/ESSJVZE-1gwJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
I've made the move to cornerstone. I'm pissed that Versions isn't up to date on this after parting with the money. I should have got a 5-license with cornerstone to begin with. It's the 19th of August! On Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:19:24 AM UTC+8, William Chu wrote: When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less given this limitation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/u5_pS7FOPKAJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
I'd like to second Alex's email. Now that Subversion 1.7 is what MacPorts provides, a Mac Subversion client really must support 1.7. I still have Versions installed, but haven't used it in a month (since I installed Lion on my machine). Really hoping that this support can arrive soon. Have to tell my colleagues not to buy Versions for now. On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:43:00 AM UTC-5, Alex Seeholzer wrote: Thanks for your opinion on this. I believe you when you're saying you're working your asses off. Still, I want to stress that 1.7 support should be one of the first things to be released for a product that costs a whooping 59$. We had to upgrade to 1.7 here and now Versions is basically useless for me. And, its not that 1.7 has just come out - its been about 9 months. Still hoping for 1.7 support, Alex Am Sonntag, 27. Mai 2012 14:20:01 UTC+2 schrieb dlpasco: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're trying to do. If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to take. Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that people will be interested in trying them out. I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at these projects and ship them on an expedited pace. Unfortunately, this is why being indie is a double-edged sword: we have complete creative control over
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Dan, I appreciate your note to the mailing list. I'm heartened to hear you're still dedicated to developing the app and very much look forward to your coming releases. Joe -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
@dlpasco: Your brain dump at least shed a little more light on what's going on than Jack's response above. My own opinion -- and that's all it is -- is that some public indication of what's going on would be better than nothing. I've had to move on; based on working in a mixed-OS team, the lack of support for SVN 1.7 put me in a position where I simply couldn't work. I've switched to a competitor's product and I am quite satisfied with the move... in addition to SVN 1.7 support, the tool I chose has several key capabilities missing from Versions. That being said, I will probably continue to keep an eye on Versions in the hope that someday it reaches some degree of parity but the longer it goes without some tangible evidence (either in the form of information from the vendor or actual product updates) of relevance, the more quickly it will fade... On Sunday, May 27, 2012 6:22:06 AM UTC-6, dlpasco wrote: I realize that this may seem like a disproportionately long response compared to the comment that spurred it, but we've been talking internally for quite awhile about this situation is and what we can do about it. My previous email was effectively a brain dump of what we've been discussing within our group. -Daniel On May 27, 2012, at 5:20 AM, Daniel Pasco dan...@blackpixel.com wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
I realize that this may seem like a disproportionately long response compared to the comment that spurred it, but we've been talking internally for quite awhile about this situation is and what we can do about it. My previous email was effectively a brain dump of what we've been discussing within our group. -Daniel On May 27, 2012, at 5:20 AM, Daniel Pasco dan...@blackpixel.com wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're trying to do. If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to take. Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that people will be interested in trying them out. I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at these projects and ship them on an expedited pace. Unfortunately, this is why being indie is a double-edged sword: we have complete creative control over our apps and can take the time to make them the best they can be, instead of being beholden to some investor that wants us to ship a shitty product as quickly as possible to meet their bottom line, or outright kill a product by selling it to someone that *would* just sit on it to make a quick buck. Really, the only sources of pressure we have to ship something before it's ready are our own finance people, who would love to see the revenue coming in so they could stop pouring money
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Your words were well said and not too long at all. I for one have been using a competitor's product for quite a while but have been holding out hope that Versions will again be the svn GUI of choice. I actively watch for progress whether it is in what is said on this list or in new releases. What you said was encouraging. I will continue to look to come back if and when Versions meets my needs better than the competitor's product. I have been down the road of trying to support what ended up becoming abandon-ware (ZigVersion), and I am glad to hear that Versions is far from that. Rob On May 27, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Daniel Pasco wrote: I realize that this may seem like a disproportionately long response compared to the comment that spurred it, but we've been talking internally for quite awhile about this situation is and what we can do about it. My previous email was effectively a brain dump of what we've been discussing within our group. -Daniel On May 27, 2012, at 5:20 AM, Daniel Pasco dan...@blackpixel.com wrote: We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater than it already is. Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the those releases until they have shipped. If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. The gist of this is as follows: * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take longer to make something better than just push something out the door that would make people upset). * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to these apps. My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great job on them takes time. Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: * We are crazily in love with our apps * We are working our butts off * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps *ship* and we want them to be amazing. * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that the direct revenue doesn't cover. At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're trying to do. If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to take. Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that people will be interested in trying them out. I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Wow. On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:26:50 PM UTC-6, Jack (Black Pixel) wrote: Hi - sorry for the delay in responding. Unfortunately, I don't have any information to share regarding 1.7 support. Jack the Versions team versionsapp.com @versionsapp On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:19:24 AM UTC-7, William Chu wrote: When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less given this limitation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/TfJ0ZlqgoV8J. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
Re: Subversion 1.7 support?
Hi - sorry for the delay in responding. Unfortunately, I don't have any information to share regarding 1.7 support. Jack the Versions team versionsapp.com @versionsapp On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:19:24 AM UTC-7, William Chu wrote: When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less given this limitation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Versions group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/wW6C4UDoQ8UJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
