On 11/02/2012 09:07 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 02.11.2012 04:34, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:59:10AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> I went ahead and disabled auto-upgrades in r1404856. > > During the SVN Live conferences I asked people, privately, about their > opinion on automatic vs. manual upgrades. The overwhelming response was > that they wait for all the clients to catch up before upgrading. Given > these results, my opinion leans towards leaving auto-upgrades on, but > spending more effort on documenting that there's no way back.
I'm not convinced that your results (as presented, at least) actually tell us anything other than that our more-aware users already expect auto-upgrading to occur and to screw them over, so they avoid it. That's seems to fall quite a bit short of a validation of the auto-upgrade approach! ;-) What would have been more interesting to know is how they felt about the required one-time manual 'svn upgrade' in 1.7 -- was it troublesome for their processes? If our more-aware users already work to upgrade their software in concert, and have no concerns with the manual 'svn upgrade' step, then our auto-or-not-upgrade decision is a moot point for them. Their opinion is, therefore, disinteresting. What remains, then, are our less-aware users, who'll -- if we decide to continue auto-upgrading -- will wind up fussing with all the inherent problems of mixed-pedigree Subversion clients and for whom extra documentation is pointless (because if they read *that*, they'd be more aware!). :-) -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
