Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
As I recall the auto-upgrade that we used before 1.7 only happened on write operations, not on read-only operations like status, while the current SQLite auto-upgrade happens on both read-only and write operations. That pre-1.7 behaviour means that when a working copy is auto-upgraded it is more likely to be concious action by the user. It is probably more difficult to implement such a scheme with the SQLite code. -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
