Greg Stein writes:
> On Aug 25, 2012 8:08 PM, "Branko Čibej" 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 d
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Branko Čibej 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 co
In my experience (I work in finance/banking sector), the issue with WC
upgrades tend to come from reliance on multiple tools:
cmd line - for scripts
IDE plugin - for development
plugin for the file explorer - for task that are quicker done outside IDE
Continuous Integration plugin
in "enterprise"
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 08:04:09AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> This is tending off-topic, but I'll note that this is in a class of
> server-side configuration that would not (in fact, *should not* in my
> opinion) be aided by the work that Paul is doing right now. Configuration
> via inherit
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I'm thinking that we ought to continue auto-upgrade for the masses,
> especially given Bert's input. Much as I dislike config knobs, it seems
> prudent to introduce a "disable auto-upgrade" option for large, multi-client
> shops. IMO, you're te
On 08/27/2012 07:56 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 04:47:58AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
>> I'm thinking that we ought to continue auto-upgrade for the masses,
>> especially given Bert's input. Much as I dislike config knobs, it seems
>> prudent to introduce a "disable auto-upgr
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 04:47:58AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> I'm thinking that we ought to continue auto-upgrade for the masses,
> especially given Bert's input. Much as I dislike config knobs, it seems
> prudent to introduce a "disable auto-upgrade" option for large,
> multi-client shops. IMO, yo
I'm thinking that we ought to continue auto-upgrade for the masses,
especially given Bert's input. Much as I dislike config knobs, it seems
prudent to introduce a "disable auto-upgrade" option for large,
multi-client shops. IMO, you're tending towards sophisticated if you use
more than one svn clie
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
>> Sent: zondag 26 augustus 2012 21:39
>> To: Greg Stein
>> Cc: Branko Čibej; dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re:
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: zondag 26 augustus 2012 21:39
> To: Greg Stein
> Cc: Branko Čibej; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Auto Upgrade Behavior
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:29:45PM -0400, Greg St
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:29:45PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2012 8:08 PM, "Branko Čibej" 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. The
On Aug 25, 2012 8:08 PM, "Branko Čibej" 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
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 f
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 backwar
Branko Čibej wrote on Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 23:25:54 +0200:
> On 25.08.2012 11:33, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> After all the discussions about this topic, I've slowly come to the
> >> conclusion that this is the best option. The only
On 25.08.2012 11:33, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> After all the discussions about this topic, I've slowly come to the
>> conclusion that this is the best option. The only trouble I see is in
>> properly supporting older WC formats, becaus
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> After all the discussions about this topic, I've slowly come to the
> conclusion that this is the best option. The only trouble I see is in
> properly supporting older WC formats, because as far as I can see,
> there's not much infrast
On 25.08.2012 11:00, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 05:21:09PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> Currently trunk tries to auto-upgrade the WC pretty much every chance
>> it gets, even when the cwd is an unversioned directory within a WC.
>> I've been wondering if this is really such a g
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 05:21:09PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> Currently trunk tries to auto-upgrade the WC pretty much every chance
> it gets, even when the cwd is an unversioned directory within a WC.
> I've been wondering if this is really such a good idea -- it's been
> quite noticeable, in an a
19 matches
Mail list logo
