On Thu, 04 Oct 2007, David Glasser wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Mark Phippard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 10/4/07, David Glasser <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On 10/4/07, Mark Phippard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > What if we held off the bump until we would be writing the WC? One of
> > > > the problems with 1.4 is anything that touched the WC rewrote it.
> > > > When you are on Windows, TortoiseSVN will eventually touch every WC on
> > > > your hard drive, depending on what you have built up in its cache and
> > > > how often you just browse your drive with Windows Explorer.
> > > >
> > > > If you had to at least do an update/commit/checkout that would help a
> > > > little. Then you could at least be somewhat careful and not have it
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure that this is the status quo --- the format is only
> > > upgraded if a write lock is taken out.
> > Maybe I am wrong, but I thought with 1.4, even something like status
> > updated the WC.
> Nope; just tested.
Hmm, then why all the noise about third-party clients, especially those
integrated into GUI shells (e.g. TortoiseSVN and SCPlugin), automatically
upgrading your WC while browsing your local file system?
Received on Sat Oct 6 00:22:20 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored