Yup. Thanks for the feedback.
On another note, elsewhere in this thread was a call for "maybe use
something other than 'svn cleanup'?" ... When Hyrum and I suggested
that command, it was in terms of "clean up your wc, to be usable by
1.7 [and yah... it upgrades it]." But in the past day, I believe we
are going to continue to need the historical concept of "cleanup",
even in the wc-ng world. To that end, I would propose a --upgrade
switch to cleanup, rather than a new 'upgrade' subcommand.
Thoughts welcome. I would be very interested in further feedback from
the community, since our development strategy really changes depending
on whether we need to run stale logs or not.
Thanks,
-g
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 15:24, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> We know what the ideal situation is, but it sounds like the development cost
> is crippling in this case. I'm okay with calling this an unsupported edge
> case, and with recommending that folks ensure the successful completion of
> 'svn cleanup' in all working copies *before* upgrading to 1.7.
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> I'm issuing a second request for comment here. IMO, this is a pretty
>> dramatic departure from prior release strategy, and (for a few users)
>> it will be a pain to grab an old client to clean out the stale logs.
>> (or to do a new checkout, and figure out what changes to port over)
>>
>> We're getting *very* close to the point where we're going to start on
>> a major hack/slash against the loggy code. We need to be sure that
>> people are bought into the position of, "oops. you crashed at a bad
>> spot. then upgraded your client. you're in a tough spot".
>>
>> I'll assume "it's a total edge case, so yah. any stale logs prevent an upgrade."
>>
>> If the problem space is unclear to anybody, then please let me know,
>> and Hyrum/myself can explain further.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -g
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 03:01, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Regarding upgrading: I believe we should always be able to upgrade any
>>> production release. IOW, upgrade 1.0 working copies. I think it is
>>> simply part of our compatibility story across 1.x releases.
>>>
>>> The question at hand isn't so much upgrading as "should we expend the
>>> effort to run stale logs from within the 1.7 codebase, or send people
>>> back to a prior release to clear those out first?" (or they can just
>>> do a new checkout) Running stale logs would be a HUGE effort, and
>>> potentially affecting mere handfuls of people. Thus, the reason for
>>> Hyrum's email.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -g
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2033486
>
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2056463
Received on 2009-05-04 15:37:11 CEST