On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:19:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > 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.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I'd expect people to write in out of the blue, asking for the feature to be kept. I meant to say that I cannot recall any user ever requesting that auto-upgrades be kept during a discussion about whether or not auto-upgrades should be happening or not. Is there anyone? If so, speak up, now is your chance :) Stefan
