On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> During the SVN Live conferences I asked people, privately, about their
> opinion on automatic vs. manual upgrades. The overwhelming response was
> that they wait for all the clients to catch up before upgrading. Given
> these results, my opinion leans towards leaving auto-upgrades on, but
> spending more effort on documenting that there's no way back.
The impression I got was that the following two statements are true:
People would prefer auto-upgrading over a manual upgrade.
People had been negatively impacted due to auto-upgrades in the past.
While these two statements seem contradictory. Ultimately, what
people really want is to just not worry about it at all.
But that's not really possible. Especially in light of your following
> Regarding read-only access to old-format WCs: I studied the
> implementation and came to the conclusion that it's not worth the
> effort. There's no clear connection between read-only operations and
> actually not modifying the wc.db, so unless someone wants to refactor
> the WC code (and all the bits that rely on it) again, this is not going
> to happen.
My inclination is to use manual upgrades:
1) With auto-upgrades we can put warnings all over the place but if
the end user never reads it there's nothing we can do to help them.
So many of our users don't see our website or documentation, so the
only place we can really drive messages to them is through the error
messages we display. By requiring the manual upgrade when you try to
use the working copy with a newer client we can display a message
explaining the issues. It's not worry free for the user but at least
we have the opportunity to educate them.
2) This is a pretty weak argument but it seems really odd to me to
have an upgrade command in the client that's only used to go from 1.6
Received on 2012-11-02 23:40:44 CET