On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:50:36PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> That's correct.
>>
>> And Philip, I see this as really two issues:
>>
>> 1. we auto-upgrade working copies (at all)
>> 2. we auto-upgrade working copies that are arguably not the true targets of
>> an operation.
>>
>> I can live with the first problem if I must. It's the second that's the
>> more egregious of the two, in my book. So yes, I think it makes (as you
>> suggested elsethread) to add a 'read-only' mode to the WCDB, and to use that
>> mode in the initial exploratory phases of a checkout operation. Maybe we
>> provide a way to upgrade that to read/write programmatically rather than
>> closing and re-opening the DB ... no opinion there. Whatever makes the most
>> sense.
>
> Or we just disable auto-upgrade. I think we've seen enough reasons
> now why it's just a plain stupid idea in practice.
>
+1 to disable auto-upgrade. WC upgrade is non reversible operation and
performing it silently is very bad idea.
> It it supposed to help users with gazillions of working copies that
> they have lying around and want to use with a newly installed svn
> client, and who don't have enough time to type 'svn upgrade' when
> they want to start using one of their old working copies. [*]
> And it annoys everyone else, as far as I can tell.
>
> [*] That's the only reason for its existence that I've heard, to date.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2012-09-25 01:27:38 CEST