RFC: should we remind people to upgrade?
paul_nathan at selinc.com
paul_nathan at selinc.com
Mon Dec 31 12:56:25 CST 2012
mercurial-devel-bounces at selenic.com wrote on 12/23/2012 12:31:32 PM:
> From: Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com>
> To: mercurial-devel <mercurial-devel at selenic.com>,
> Date: 12/23/2012 12:31 PM
> Subject: RFC: should we remind people to upgrade?
> Sent by: mercurial-devel-bounces at selenic.com
>
> Something like 30% of bug reports are from people running copies of
> Mercurial that are a year old or more and who would benefit from
> upgrading. Perhaps we should gently remind people that their copy is
> getting stale.
>
[snip]
Hi Matt,
As a private individual who has hg installed on something like 6-8
different machines, I would enjoy this kind of nice reminder to upgrade,
as I like to stay up to date!
As a "corporate consumer", where Versions Are A Big Deal, I would like the
option to disable this; some kind of "ui.upgradereminder=no" option for
hgrc files.
Our in-house production version is 2.2.3, and while we are actually
prepared to upgrade "real soon now" at this point in time (waiting on a
thg deb at the moment), our plan is to tick over our in-house client hg
versions about once per six months and our server hg versions about once
per year. It would be terribly frustrating having to explain to everyone
that yes, they are out of date, no, they shouldn't go out of sync, etc.
Part of my goal is to ensure that our internal extensions and tools will
not break on upgrade; another part of my goal is to balance upgrade speed
with disruption to our work schedules. So we will be delaying upgrades on
a routine basis to ensure a quality hg experience for our users. I
anticipate that this requirement set is not unique to SEL.
- - -
Regards,
Paul Nathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20121231/bdfd568c/attachment.html>
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list