Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 25, 2012 8:08 PM, "Branko Čibej" <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 26.08.2012 00:31, Greg Stein wrote:
>> > In the past, we used auto-upgrade because it "just worked". Most users
>> > don't need or want to worry about working copy formats. They just want svn
>> > to work.
>> > I don't think we should be making things more difficult for the majority in
>> > order to help a few users who use multiple clients. That is backwards. :-(
>> Well, evidence appears to suggest that users who use multiple clients
>> are in fact the majority. Hearsay evidence, but that's the only kind I
>> see hereabouts.
> I'd call it a vocal minority. We've got millions of users. I can't see the
> majority using multiple clients. Nobody runs into issues using a single
> client, so there is no need to speak up.
As I recall the auto-upgrade that we used before 1.7 only happened on
write operations, not on read-only operations like status, while the
current SQLite auto-upgrade happens on both read-only and write
operations. That pre-1.7 behaviour means that when a working copy is
auto-upgraded it is more likely to be concious action by the user. It
is probably more difficult to implement such a scheme with the SQLite
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-08-28 11:22:31 CEST