This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Rolling back to 1.6.x Subversion

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Jeremy Bopp <> wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 01:39, Andrey Repin wrote:
>> Greetings, Jeremy Bopp!
>>> All I really wanted to know was why it was important to hang back from the
>>> latest available version when getting the older one was less than trivial.
>>> Not using anything more than the command line for svn (infrequently at that)
>>> made me forget how often that project changes formats in the working copies
>>> and the ramifications of that behavior.
>> On my memory, it wasn't changed even once in four years. Or all changes were
>> transparent.
>> The main problem with 1.7 I see myself, I described earlier: No way to tell at
>> a glance, if the directory you're working with is versioned or not.
> I want to think that they only change the working copy format when the
> minor version changes, but I also think that they have done that with
> every minor version transition since at least 1.4. ?I know I remember
> seeing the client request to upgrade my working copies at least once
> before anyway. ?Whether or not that upgrade was required, I can't say.

This is all explained quite clearly in the documentation on the
Subversion web site.  Each minor release is allowed to change the
working copy format in a non-compatible way (the lower numbered
clients can't safely use it).  This simplifies the development of
Subversion but causes a (to me at least) very minor annoyance that all
clients that will use the same working copy must be at the same minor
release.  This, however, doesn't stop anyone else who writes
Subversion clients from transparently supporting multiple client
versions simultaneously (and dealing with the complexity that

> Regardless of the time period between minor version bumps, that rate of
> change in working copies seems excessive to me given the relative
> stability of other SCM tools, but that's just my likely ignorant
> opinion. ;-)
> Maybe like you say, the other transitions allowed for some backward
> compatible support. ?It's odd then that they wouldn't allow for that in
> the 1.7 client. ?I would expect the 1.7 client to at least support
> *using* existing version 1.6 working copies in order to avoid exactly
> this sort of interoperability issue, but it sounds like it does not.
> That's very unfortunate if true.
> If true, maybe it would make sense to allow for parallel installation of
> svn versions that differ by minor number and use the alternatives system
> to allow the user to select a particular one if they decided to install
> both. ?In other words, it would be handy to offer something like
> subversion16 and subversion17 packages as well as an alias package named
> just subversion that would pull in the latest version. ?That's probably
> more work than it's worth though given the number of sub-packages also
> offered with subversion.
> -Jeremy
> --
> Problem reports: ? ? ?
> FAQ: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> Documentation: ? ? ? ?
> Unsubscribe info: ? ? ?

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]