On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:50:36PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> That's correct. >> >> And Philip, I see this as really two issues: >> >> 1. we auto-upgrade working copies (at all) >> 2. we auto-upgrade working copies that are arguably not the true targets of >> an operation. >> >> I can live with the first problem if I must. It's the second that's the >> more egregious of the two, in my book. So yes, I think it makes (as you >> suggested elsethread) to add a 'read-only' mode to the WCDB, and to use that >> mode in the initial exploratory phases of a checkout operation. Maybe we >> provide a way to upgrade that to read/write programmatically rather than >> closing and re-opening the DB ... no opinion there. Whatever makes the most >> sense. > > Or we just disable auto-upgrade. I think we've seen enough reasons > now why it's just a plain stupid idea in practice. > +1 to disable auto-upgrade. WC upgrade is non reversible operation and performing it silently is very bad idea.
> It it supposed to help users with gazillions of working copies that > they have lying around and want to use with a newly installed svn > client, and who don't have enough time to type 'svn upgrade' when > they want to start using one of their old working copies. [*] > And it annoys everyone else, as far as I can tell. > > [*] That's the only reason for its existence that I've heard, to date. -- Ivan Zhakov
