On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:00:13PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> Yup. I have dozens of working copies. The auto-upgrade is an awesome
> and useful feature. I don't have to worry about the fact that
> Subversion has changed something in its metadata. Why the heck should
> I care?
>
> The manual upgrad
The others are just having to take an action
> they want 90+% of the time.
>
> Bob Jenkins
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Archer [mailto:bob.arc...@amsi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: Mark Phippard; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE:
Mark Phippard wrote on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 at 13:45 -0400:
> Due to the way TSVN is integrated into Windows you can only have one
> version installed. So this scenario really cannot happen, other than
> doing a complete uninstall of 1.6 and reinstalling 1.5.
Then let's assume that they either do a co
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> I would guess a good percentage of those users, likely the majority,
>> use no other SVN client.
>
> There is the "I have TSVN 1.5 and want to try TSVN 1.6 without
> irreversibly breaking all my working copies" scenario.
>
> (I would guess no
Mark Phippard wrote on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 at 10:38 -0400:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> >> We are only ever going to hear the complaints. That does not mean
> >> they speak for the majority of users.
> >
> > Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I'd expect people to write
mainly play to this group. The others are just having to take an action
they want 90+% of the time.
Bob Jenkins
-Original Message-
From: Bob Archer [mailto:bob.arc...@amsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Mark Phippard; dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: auto-upgrade
> Most users don't like doing something more and most don't use
> multiple
> clients on a single working copy which is really where the
> automation
> bites you. That said, I wouldn't argue that making this change
I agree with that. However, it isn't often that you will be upgrading from 1.x
to 1
I definitely think people do like having this automatically done for
them with the only exception being those people who use multiple clients
on a single working copy. I'm not surprised no one talks about it as a
desirable feature as it is just how it has always worked. As Mark notes,
you'll hear m
> >> We are only ever going to hear the complaints. That does not
> mean
> >> they speak for the majority of users.
> >
> > Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I'd expect people to write in
> > out of the blue, asking for the feature to be kept.
> >
> > I meant to say that I cannot recall any user eve
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> We are only ever going to hear the complaints. That does not mean
>> they speak for the majority of users.
>
> Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I'd expect people to write in
> out of the blue, asking for the feature to be kept.
>
> I mean
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:19:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> The auto-upgrade has always bothered me. I'd much prefer to have a
> >> command line action (e.g. "svn upgrade") to upgrade the working copy,
> >> and for the default behav
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> The auto-upgrade has always bothered me. I'd much prefer to have a
>> command line action (e.g. "svn upgrade") to upgrade the working copy,
>> and for the default behaviour to be that the client prints an error
>> message suggesting that t
> I have repeatedly heard similar complaints and would therefore
> prefer
> an explicit 'svn upgrade' upon 1.x to 1.y upgrades for working
> copies
> starting with 1.7. And I have never heard anyone asking for the
> auto-upgrade
> feature to be kept.
>
> The CLI client can print an error. GUI clie
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: donderdag 1 juli 2010 11:34
> To: Alan Barrett
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: auto-upgrade of working copy
>
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:25:33AM +0200, Alan Barrett w
Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 at 12:33 -:
> This does not harm people using a single client much, but helps users
> who use several clients simultaneously a lot (they don't have to get
> fresh WCs to continue getting work done).
Including devs around the time of WC format bumps. :-
-Original Message-
> > From: Alan Barrett [mailto:a...@cequrux.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 8:26 AM
> > To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: auto-upgrade of working copy
> >
> [snip]
> > The auto-upgrade has always bothered me. I'd mu
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:25:33AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Nope. Users cannot generally downgrade their client to run a cleanup.
> > Historically, we have always auto-upgraded the working copies, even
> > with stale logs in them.
> >
> > The 1.7 upgr
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Barrett [mailto:a...@cequrux.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 8:26 AM
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: auto-upgrade of working copy
>
[snip]
> The auto-upgrade has always bothered me. I'd much prefer to have a
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Greg Stein wrote:
> Nope. Users cannot generally downgrade their client to run a cleanup.
> Historically, we have always auto-upgraded the working copies, even
> with stale logs in them.
>
> The 1.7 upgrade process is too invasive and time-consuming, so we
> decided to have a
19 matches
Mail list logo
