On 02.11.2012 15:15, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > 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! ;-)
True. > 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? I got exactly one response about the 1.7 upgrade, and it went like this: "checked out new working copies because the upgrade didn't work for us." Which doesn't really help all that much in retrospect. > 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!). :-) The real problem I see with manual upgrades is that you can do /nothing/ with the new client until you've upgraded your working copy. That's a regression from what we did up to and including 1.6, but it's not easy to fix because the WC-NG design does not really admit the concept of read-only operations. Of course, in this respect automatic upgrades are no better, just the other way around. Do we want to delay 1.8 until we /can/ do backward-compatible read-only operations? I somehow don't think so. -- Brane
