On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yet again I give my hearty +1 (and wonder why this is still even a
question several months after first discussing the issue. :/ )
-Hyrum
Received on 2012-09-25 04:40:31 CEST