On 11/02/2012 09:07 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 02.11.2012 04:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:59:10AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> I went ahead and disabled auto-upgrades in r1404856.
>
> During the SVN Live conferences I asked people, privately, about their
> opinion on automatic vs. manual upgrades. The overwhelming response was
> that they wait for all the clients to catch up before upgrading. Given
> these results, my opinion leans towards leaving auto-upgrades on, but
> spending more effort on documenting that there's no way back.
I'm not convinced that your results (as presented, at least) actually tell
us anything other than that our more-aware users already expect
auto-upgrading to occur and to screw them over, so they avoid it. That's
seems to fall quite a bit short of a validation of the auto-upgrade
approach! ;-)
What would have been more interesting to know is how they felt about the
required one-time manual 'svn upgrade' in 1.7 -- was it troublesome for
their processes? If our more-aware users already work to upgrade their
software in concert, and have no concerns with the manual 'svn upgrade'
step, then our auto-or-not-upgrade decision is a moot point for them. Their
opinion is, therefore, disinteresting.
What remains, then, are our less-aware users, who'll -- if we decide to
continue auto-upgrading -- will wind up fussing with all the inherent
problems of mixed-pedigree Subversion clients and for whom extra
documentation is pointless (because if they read *that*, they'd be more
aware!). :-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2012-11-02 15:16:14 CET