On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >> The auto-upgrade has always bothered me. I'd much prefer to have a >> command line action (e.g. "svn upgrade") to upgrade the working copy, >> and for the default behaviour to be that the client prints an error >> message suggesting that the user should run "svn upgrade". > > I have repeatedly heard similar complaints and would therefore prefer > an explicit 'svn upgrade' upon 1.x to 1.y upgrades for working copies > starting with 1.7. And I have never heard anyone asking for the auto-upgrade > feature to be kept.
I am not against having an svn upgrade, but it seems worth noting why would anyone bother to report that they want you to keep a feature they already have? If users are happy with auto-upgraded working copies, which is all we ever gave them, why would they feel the need to post requests to keep the feature? We are only ever going to hear the complaints. That does not mean they speak for the majority of users. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
