Yup. I have dozens of working copies. The auto-upgrade is an awesome
and useful feature. I don't have to worry about the fact that
Subversion has changed something in its metadata. Why the heck should
I care?
The manual upgrade process is the odd-man-out here. As I mentioned
earlier, we decided on that with *reluctance* because of the manual
intervention that it will impose upon people. That we are monkeying
with something so strongly, that we couldn't make it invisible to the
user.
"Easy" should be the prevailing case, and that means auto-upgrade.
Config options? Bleah. I dislike increasing the conceptual burden on
our users ("hunh? should I set this? what is the impact? why do I need
it? is this a good idea? am I gonna break something?").
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:20, Bob Jenkins <rjenkins_at_collab.net> wrote:
> I think the question you'd get a better response on would be do they use
> multiple clients on a single working copy. That's really the only
> scenario where they are likely to not want to upgrade the working copy.
> Not to say there aren't other edge cases, but this change would seem to
> mainly play to this group. The others are just having to take an action
> they want 90+% of the time.
>
> Bob Jenkins
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Archer [mailto:Bob.Archer_at_amsi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: Mark Phippard; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: auto-upgrade of working copy
>
> tortoise is a GUI and it could present a simple "Ok to upgrade your
> working copy" dialog.
>
> Perhaps an email on the user list to do an informal poll?
>
> BOb
>
>
Received on 2010-07-01 23:00:54 CEST