On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:19:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> >> The auto-upgrade has always bothered me. I'd much prefer to have a
> >> command line action (e.g. "svn upgrade") to upgrade the working copy,
> >> and for the default behaviour to be that the client prints an error
> >> message suggesting that the user should run "svn upgrade".
> > I have repeatedly heard similar complaints and would therefore prefer
> > an explicit 'svn upgrade' upon 1.x to 1.y upgrades for working copies
> > starting with 1.7. And I have never heard anyone asking for the auto-upgrade
> > feature to be kept.
> I am not against having an svn upgrade, but it seems worth noting why
> would anyone bother to report that they want you to keep a feature
> they already have? If users are happy with auto-upgraded working
> copies, which is all we ever gave them, why would they feel the need
> to post requests to keep the feature?
> We are only ever going to hear the complaints. That does not mean
> they speak for the majority of users.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I'd expect people to write in
out of the blue, asking for the feature to be kept.
I meant to say that I cannot recall any user ever requesting
that auto-upgrades be kept during a discussion about whether
or not auto-upgrades should be happening or not.
Is there anyone? If so, speak up, now is your chance :)
Received on 2010-07-01 16:34:49 CEST