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 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 are >>>> understandably frustrated and impatient with the realities of how long >>>> this is taking. >>>> >>>> Everyone else in our own group is beating themselves senseless on our work >>>> and would prefer to keep it unreleased until it is ready. >>>> >>>> We've talked about writing a blog post about this, and we probably should. >>>> I don't know if this will make a bit of difference to anyone reading this, >>>> but we're working hard, and we truly give a shit about our customers and >>>> what we're working on. >>>> >>>> In any case, as I said, if people are upset about it, feel free to reach >>>> out to me directly. I'm the CEO and I'm the responsible party for these >>>> decisions, not Jack. >>>> >>>> -Daniel Pasco, CEO >>>> Black Pixel >>>> >>>> On May 27, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Christian Pleul <chri...@googlemail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That support really sucks! Why did you guys ever bought this software... >>>>> >>>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On 25.05.2012, at 23:26, "Jack (Black Pixel)" <ja...@blackpixel.com> >>>>> 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/-/wW6C4UDoQ8UJ. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to vers...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> versions+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "Versions" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to vers...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> versions+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. > -- > 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/-/KduvQQJ4xA0J. > 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. -- 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.
