Geoff Beaumont <geoffbeaumont@stormhammer.com> writes:
> I take your point, though I'd have thought that if you depend_ on
> Subversion, the last_ thing you'd want to be doing is upgrading it
> every month...
No, you've got it backwards. :-)
If you were depending on subversion 1.0 for really critical stuff,
then yes, your attitude would be exactly correct: the only time to
upgrade is for significant security bugfix. This is a standard,
conservative atttiude: in general, upgrading is more risky than
beneficial.
But there is no svn 1.0 yet; subversion is alpha software. Our
monthly releases aren't "trivial". Major things change -- huge bugs
are removed, new subcommands added, APIs shift, network protocols
change. If subversion release N < M < 1.0, then I can *guarantee*
that version M is "better" than N. The benefits far outweigh the
risks. It will have fewer bugs, better features, and a better API.
Don't be afraid to upgrade from N to M. The developers are in fact
*depending* on people to do so; it's the best way to ensure that svn
1.0 is the most stable thing ever. We can't accept bug reports on
older versions, because the "community" is busy
debugging/developing/testing the latest release. If you run an older
release, you're going to get left behind, and ultimately end up with
zero tech support. The "safest" release is always the latest one.
When we get to 1.0, then you can "settle in" and get comfy, and know
that things will be well-supported.
So until 1.0, it's really much wiser to upgrade constantly. Once we
reach 1.0, it makes sense to drop back into the conventional routine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 4 17:38:46 2003