On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Makes sense. Except that I'd argue against having an auto-upgrade > option. It seems to me that it would just complicate bug reporting > without actually gaining anyone anything. If you're thinking about > large-scale client deployments in contolled environments, surely the > upgrade can be scripted as part of that. I realize we are not voting, but if we were, I would vote to require that svn upgrade has to be run to bump the working copy and we do NOT provide any option to auto-upgrade. My reason would be consistency. With 1.7 we ran into a scenario where auto-upgrade did not make sense. Who is to say we will not run into that again with 1.9 or some future release? I do not think we should change this from release to release. That said, I also do not agree with Greg that the users asking for this are merely a vocal minority. In my opinion, and this is not based on anything but a gut feel, the number of SVN users that are using GUI clients absolutely dwarfs the number using the command line only. I think many users likely use multiple GUI clients, and probably also have scripts or build processes that use the command line or other things like SVNKit. The auto-upgrade feature has been a consistent source of pain for users in past releases. I did not hear any complaints from users when 1.7 came out. There were people that ran into bugs with the upgrade process, but that would have been even worse if it was an auto-upgrade. I did not hear people complain about having to upgrade working copies and many users expressed their appreciation that we finally moved to that model. The complaints we heard were about the upgrade itself. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
