On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:29:45PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > On Aug 25, 2012 8:08 PM, "Branko Čibej" <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > > > On 26.08.2012 00:31, Greg Stein wrote: > > > In the past, we used auto-upgrade because it "just worked". Most users > > > don't need or want to worry about working copy formats. They just want > svn > > > to work. > > > > > > I don't think we should be making things more difficult for the > majority in > > > order to help a few users who use multiple clients. That is backwards. > :-( > > > > Well, evidence appears to suggest that users who use multiple clients > > are in fact the majority. Hearsay evidence, but that's the only kind I > > see hereabouts. > > I'd call it a vocal minority. We've got millions of users. I can't see the > majority using multiple clients. Nobody runs into issues using a single > client, so there is no need to speak up.
I keep getting these complaints often. Mostly from users I personally talk to during workshops, consulting, etc. Dunno how much of our user population they represent. However it would be nice for me and them if auto-upgrade was disabled by default. Because the problem would be solved for them, and I could spend the time during my workshops talking about more interesting stuff than why we auto-upgrade and how to avoid the pitfalls. My desire to make this changed is based on real user feedback. I wouldn't want to make it if these people didn't request it. That's where I come from. I'm trying to keep you happy too by adding a global config knob you can enable. I know you don't like config knobs either but I cannot think of any other solution to make both us of happy. Do you have any suggestions other than keeping auto-upgrade the default? Any chance of compromise?
