On 28.06.2012 05:24, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Branko Čibej <branko.cibej_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 28.06.2012 01:32, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 07:51:59PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>> I would prefer to by default keep working copy upgrades manual from now on.
>>>> +1, let's please keep it an explicit action by the user.
>>> Not sure about that. The user will type 'svn move' and not get the
>>> benefits. All the docs will say it *should* work, but it doesn't.
>> Not to mention feature-invariant updates, such as the new MD5 index. if
>> you don't have it, nothing breaks except your patience. :)
>> Realistically, we've "taught" users and especially packagers to expect
>> silent updates (and have said loudly enough that 1.7/WC-NG is an
>> exception). I think we should just keep on doing that.
> Agreed, and I'm against the auto-update as well.
Impedance mismatch? "Just keep on doing that" refers to automatic,
silent WC updates. :)
I cited the MD5 index as a case where you definitely want the update to
Now ... do we want to come up with a WC versioning scheme that allows
partially automatic updates (e.g., for changes that are
backward-compatible, such as adding a new index) but requiring manual
intervention for incompatible changes? Maybe. Doing this would certainly
make the code a lot more complex, not just the update part but also the
requirement for newer versions to support (and emulate all the quirks
of) older WC(-NG) formats.
I'd want to think very, very carefully about doing this, maintaining
such compatibility is likely to be quite tricky.
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-06-28 05:46:04 CEST