I know for a fact that UX is already a major decision point around choosing Subversion over modern alternatives.
What have we done in the past? A staggered +1 release model seems worthy where we announce it in version A [with it disabled] to allow users to "opt-in". If the value is there, users will jump on it. We can measure it via feedback. At some point down the line, opt-in folds into "default" and strict is the new sheriff in town. This is a very successful way of introducing incremental customer facing changes in the SaaS world - that is proven. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I > cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. > > I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because > otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when > nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. > > This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in r1731699. > If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the default? > I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base > this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among users. > > And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less > painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more painful > than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell. -- Jacek Materna CTO Assembla 210-410-7661
