On 25.08.2012 11:33, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Branko ─îibej wrote:
>> After all the discussions about this topic, I've slowly come to the
>> conclusion that this is the best option. The only trouble I see is in
>> properly supporting older WC formats, because as far as I can see,
>> there's not much infrastructure in place for that.
>> Unless you think that it's OK for newer SVN releases to simply not work
>> on old working copies?
> I thought the plan going forward was to require a working copy
> upgrade when the user upgrades to 1.8. What I'm proposing is
> that this upgrade should be a manual step as it was during the
> 1.6 -> 1.7 transition, with the option of always auto-upgrading
> for advanced users who know what they're doing. I've seen too
> many inexperienced users run into problems because of auto-upgrade
> during the 1.5 -> 1.6 transition (mainly users of multi-client
> setups in large corporations). By comparison the 1.6 -> 1.7
> transition was a lot easier for those users because they were
> made aware of what was happening.
> I'm not proposing to add read/write support of the 1.7 format to 1.8,
> if that's what you're asking for. I know SVNKit has this feature
> but it's a bigger task than I can add on my todo pile right now.
Makes sense. Except that I'd argue against having an auto-upgrade
option. It seems to me that it would just complicate bug reporting
without actually gaining anyone anything. If you're thinking about
large-scale client deployments in contolled environments, surely the
upgrade can be scripted as part of that.
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-08-25 23:26:31 CEST