[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1139766 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/main.c

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:42:43 +0100

Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:

> OK.
> What about a note that says that upgrade *might* be slower than checkout?
> Index: subversion/svn/main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/svn/main.c (revision 1140083)
> +++ subversion/svn/main.c (working copy)
> @@ -1385,7 +1385,7 @@ const svn_opt_subcommand_desc2_t svn_cl__cmd_table
> " Local modifications are preserved.\n"
> "\n"
> " Note: Upgrading a working copy from the format used in Subversion 1.6\n"
> - " to the format used in Subversion 1.7 takes much more time than checking\n"
> + " to the format used in Subversion 1.7 might take more time than checking\n"
> " out a new working copy with the 1.7 client.\n"),
> { 'q' } },

It's difficult to get the wording right because we don't know enough
about the relative performance. Should we be indicating any preference
for one over the other? Using "might" can be interpreted as upgrade
being preferred and that there is a small chance that it will be slow.
For all we know upgrade is usually slower and there is only a small
chance that it is faster.

If we know nothing about a working copy, apart from it being unmodified,
and nothing about the local machine, the server or the network, do we
recommend upgrade or checkout? I don't know.

Received on 2011-06-27 14:43:29 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.