As Andy has indicated, we have heard from many of the Open Source maintainers
that the current free version more than adequately covers their needs for Open
Source development. The free version may not be completely frozen, but for
the immediate future our development efforts will be directed towards features
that are being requested by our commercial customers. We do have a roadmap of
numerous enhancements that are under development for our commercial users. As
appropriate we share this roadmap with current and potential customers when
covered by NDA.
Over time some of these enhancements may work there way into the free use
version, but we do not have specific plans for that. Other features
particular to Open Source development may come about in the future also. We
are not in any way abandoning our free use version, but trying to strike a
balance between our commercial endeavors and our support for the Open Source
community. If you need additional information regarding specifics of our
commercial development, you may contact me directly.
Thanks,
Bob Burres
BitMover
650 872 9900 x 112
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bitkeeper-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bitkeeper-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andy Isaacson
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:47 AM
> To: Steven E. Harris
> Cc: bitkeeper-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Bitkeeper-users] Re: bk-3.2.0 released
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:09:53AM -0700, Steven E. Harris wrote:
> > Andy Isaacson <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > New features developed in 3.1.x will be released (for commercial
> > > customers only) as bk-3.3.0 this summer.
> >
> > Will these new features eventually make it into a free version of BK,
> > or is the free version more or less frozen? Is there a "road map"
> > describing the divergence between the commercial and free versions?
>
> Our plans are still somewhat in flux, but we currently see the
> commercial and free versions diverging. The consensus of our
> discussions with the free users seems to be that BK 3.0/3.2 is "good
> enough", and we have some really cool ideas for stuff that's perhaps
> more applicable to commercial customers.
>
> I'm willing to listen to reasonable arguments on this topic, but this
> list probably isn't the best place to do it (whenever we have protracted
> licensing threads here, I see commercial users unsubscribing, and I
> can't blame them).
>
> BTW, your mail was queued for approval because you're not subscribed,
> Steven.
>
> -andy
> _______________________________________________
> Bitkeeper-users mailing list
> Bitkeeper-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to the above URL, follow
> instruction at the bottom of the web page.
>
_______________________________________________
Bitkeeper-users mailing list
Bitkeeper-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the above URL, follow instruction at the
bottom of the web page.
|
