On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:53 AM Karl Fogel <kfo...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> >Are you saying this is how you would activate this no-pristines > >feature? If so, that sounds like a poor UX. As a user, I would > >not > >expect the version number to be connected to a feature like that > >Or > >more accurately, I could understand if you need a 1.15 working > >copy to > >enable a WC format that tracks whether or not pristines are > >available > >but I would not expect the version number alone to be the factor > >that > >makes this decision. Does that make sense? > > FWIW, I just assumed that this *isn't* the intended entry point to > the feature. That is, it's just how things happen to be on the > branch right now, but (presumably) Julian isn't saying that he > thinks this is how users should access the feature in real life. I also assume that to be the case but want to confirm. My "assumption" is that the 1.15 WC format includes some new database indicator(s) that specify whether or not pristines are being stored but the default 1.15 format would include pristines. There will be some other option that creates the 1.15 format but with the database indicator(s) set to indicate that pristines are NOT being stored. Presumably there will be some new UX as being discussed that implicitly creates a 1.15 format WC with these indicators set. So really the only use case for creating a 1.15 format using this more generic syntax is based on some future version of SVN that lets you selectively change this setting after a WC is created? Perhaps on a file/folder by file/folder basis. Mark
