Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote on 06/10/2008 09:10:41 AM:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 08:52:23AM -0500, kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com
wrote:
> > > Besides, what's so bad with requiring people to check out new
working
> > > copies when they upgrade to a new non-patch release? I hope we don't
> > > have users who consider checking out a new working copy the end of
the
> > > world.
> >
> > The biggest problem is users that use multiple clients. Think of a
> > windows user that has TortoiseSVN, Subclipse, and the command line
> > utils installed. They must be smart enough to upgrade all at the
> > same time.
>
> Or just not use the same working copy with different clients
> written against mismatching versions of the svn API.
We have some projects with 40G+ working copies. Multiple copies
is not always an option. (Luckily these are not recommended
or the norm.)
> Once they bump one of their clients to a higher version, it
> will auto-upgrade the working copy format anyway. The other
> clients will stop touching the working copy if they're not
> upgraded as well.
>
> > A lot of our users are more and more nontechnical,
> > so they might not even know all the steps.
>
> Sure, but I don't think we should stop adding new features to the
> working copy because of that. Sometimes, there's no way around a
> working copy format bump. I agree that in your situation it would
> help to avoid the bump. But then, it often boils down to either
> having the working copy format stay the same or having new features.
I wasn't recommending stopping adding features. In fact, we
really want/need file level externals...
> > (We also have the added burden of needing to support "old"
> > Eclipse installs which may not even have a newer Subclipse
> > build that matches the wc format.)
> >
> > I'm not against bumping the format, just envisioning my pain
> > at trying to coordinate the upgrades for thousands of users
> > on a few hundred different projects. Ugh...
>
> If people really want to use so many different clients all
> at once with the same working copy, then they need to deal
> with the pain this can involve. If you tell your non-technical
> users to do this as an admin, then you need to deal with it.
I unfortunately do not have a lot of control how projects
combine and use the clients. I can't stop them from shooting
themselves in the foot, but I usually have to cleanup afterwards.
> You could tell them to use one working copy per client, and have
> them commit to a branch if they really need to transfer changes
> between their various working copies without disturbing main line.
>
> > Looking forward to wc 2.0 which solves all the worlds problems... :)
>
> I'd be surprised if "not supporting working copy format bumps"
> was a design goal for wc-2.0.
"Better interoperability between working copy formats" would be a
nice design goal. There is no reason a working copy change needs
to require incompatibility with old clients, that is just one part
of the current design (that can hopefully be improved.)
Kevin R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-10 16:43:33 CEST