Re: [PATCH] RETRY: Patch to update the Binary Package download page with client-only, no-registration option
Mark Phippard <markphip <at> gmail.com>
2011-12-02 13:53:52 GMT
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Andy Singleton <andy <at> assembla.com> wrote:
> I am submitting this patch because the other client links available - from
> Collabnet, YOUR EMPLOYER - require registration. That creates a bad and
> manipulative user experience. You can fix it by adding these links. Or,
> you can remove the registration requirement from the Collabnet downloads.
> Or, you can remove the Collabnet downloads and substitute the Assembla
> downloads, if you are so concerned about reducing the number of links.
Take a deep breath Andy. I am not attacking you. This is not
personal. The page you created is nice. I stated the reasons why I
object to adding these links. Namely that your links are just to the
same downloads for which we already have links. I raised the question
about where would we draw the line if we add these links. If we
accept yours, then who's would we turn down?
If it were my decision, the downloads that CollabNet provides would
not require registration. The page already indicates which sites
require registration. If you want to provide resources to build and
qualify binaries I am not going to object to linking to them.
> It's interesting that you bring up the svnhostingcomparison site. That is
> an advertisement for Codesion/Collabnet, paid for by Collabnet, masquerading
> as a review site. I wonder how Assembla and Codesion would look in a fair
> comparison of hosting services.
I Googled for "svn hosting" so I could give a sense for how many
providers are out there. That was the first link and it makes the
point. I did not suggest people look at the comparison data or make
any judgements based on it. I was just saying "look how many hosting
sites there are". I have never heard that site discussed at CollabNet
and do not believe we own the site. I just went back and looked and
the site says it is maintained by an individual. I did notice the
advertisement on the site.
> Yes, the links we put up are mostly duplicates of things that you can get
> from Collabnet.
This has nothing to do with CollabNet. I do not care if you want to
provide binaries. I am saying that you are linking to binaries
(WanDisco) that we already have linked on the page. I just do not see
the point in linking to the same thing twice from our page. I think
your page is good. It makes sense to me that you have it and I am
sure your customers will find it convenient that you provide it for
> That's appropriate in this venue, which is about supporting
> Apache subversion users. Shortly we will be putting up clients with new
> open source features that we have been working on, like EasySVN and
> Newmerge. If you want to use your seniority to turn this sort of thing out
> of the Apache community, then I guess there is always the option of forking.
There is no hierarchy here where my voice counts more than someone
else. I have explained why I do not think we should include the
links. We might have people that think we should just list every link
that might come our way. Those opinions are welcome. Note that there
are no links on our site to TortoiseSVN and it probably has more users
than our command line client. There are no links for Subclipse,
AnkhSVN or other popular clients either. We are not trying to shut
I am not sure why you are bringing up the fork option. If you are
developing clients that require new API or modifications to our
existing API, and you are not discussing those changes in this mailing
list and you are not doing the work in a branch of our repository,
then it sounds like you have already created a fork. That is your
option to do that. But otherwise there are plenty of Subversion
clients out there that seem to do just fine without adding links on
our download page.