On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> 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.
I realize we are not voting, but if we were, I would vote to require
that svn upgrade has to be run to bump the working copy and we do NOT
provide any option to auto-upgrade.
My reason would be consistency. With 1.7 we ran into a scenario where
auto-upgrade did not make sense. Who is to say we will not run into
that again with 1.9 or some future release? I do not think we should
change this from release to release.
That said, I also do not agree with Greg that the users asking for
this are merely a vocal minority. In my opinion, and this is not
based on anything but a gut feel, the number of SVN users that are
using GUI clients absolutely dwarfs the number using the command line
only. I think many users likely use multiple GUI clients, and
probably also have scripts or build processes that use the command
line or other things like SVNKit. The auto-upgrade feature has been a
consistent source of pain for users in past releases. I did not hear
any complaints from users when 1.7 came out. There were people that
ran into bugs with the upgrade process, but that would have been even
worse if it was an auto-upgrade. I did not hear people complain about
having to upgrade working copies and many users expressed their
appreciation that we finally moved to that model. The complaints we
heard were about the upgrade itself.
Received on 2012-08-27 15:22:22 CEST