On 28.06.2012 05:24, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Branko Čibej <branko.ci...@wandisco.com> > wrote: >> On 28.06.2012 01:32, Greg Stein wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 07:51:59PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> I would prefer to by default keep working copy upgrades manual from now >>>>> on. >>>> +1, let's please keep it an explicit action by the user. >>> Not sure about that. The user will type 'svn move' and not get the >>> benefits. All the docs will say it *should* work, but it doesn't. >> Not to mention feature-invariant updates, such as the new MD5 index. if >> you don't have it, nothing breaks except your patience. :) >> >> Realistically, we've "taught" users and especially packagers to expect >> silent updates (and have said loudly enough that 1.7/WC-NG is an >> exception). I think we should just keep on doing that. > Agreed, and I'm against the auto-update as well.
Impedance mismatch? "Just keep on doing that" refers to automatic, silent WC updates. :) I cited the MD5 index as a case where you definitely want the update to be automatic. Now ... do we want to come up with a WC versioning scheme that allows partially automatic updates (e.g., for changes that are backward-compatible, such as adding a new index) but requiring manual intervention for incompatible changes? Maybe. Doing this would certainly make the code a lot more complex, not just the update part but also the requirement for newer versions to support (and emulate all the quirks of) older WC(-NG) formats. I'd want to think very, very carefully about doing this, maintaining such compatibility is likely to be quite tricky. -- Brane -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
