Re: [svnbench] Revision: 1389172 compiled Sep 24 2012, 00:21:39 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@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

Re: [svnbench] Revision: 1389172 compiled Sep 24 2012, 00:21:39 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 25.09.2012 04:39, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@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.
> Yet again I give my hearty +1 (and wonder why this is still even a
> question several months after first discussing the issue. :/ )

Could be that the vocal proponents of manual upgrades have just
forgotten to actually turn off auto upgrades? :) (and add the
compatibility code that would make 1.7 working copies marginally useful,
at least for read-only operations, with 1.8 clients).

-- Brane

-- 
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download

Re: [svnbench] Revision: 1389172 compiled Sep 24 2012, 00:21:39 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org>]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@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.

Yet again I give my hearty +1 (and wonder why this is still even a
question several months after first discussing the issue. :/ )

-Hyrum