Den ons 9 mars 2022 kl 20:53 skrev Julian Foad <jul...@foad.me.uk>: > This is why I think we should do at least one of: > > - require the exact first-introduced version (1.8 or 1.15) > - rename the option to use a less ambiguous language, to something like > '--wc-format-version=1.8' (meaning the version in which this format was > introduced) or '--wc-format=31' > > I think those both make it clearer for the user. We need especially to > be aware of users encountering this option for the first time, and not > deeply knowing what they are doing. A user wanting a format compatible > with Subversion minor version <bar>, without considering that there may > be more than one compatible format to choose from, may be misled if we > silently pick one and don't make that clear. >
I've never been a fan of the --compatible-version naming, but I must admit I've not digged into the details. The name --wc-format-version seems much clearer to me (with --wc-format as an acceptable variation, probably more for the poweruser). Regarding how to handle --wc-format-version=1.9, I'm leaning towards "use the newest format that was known by 1.9". That would enable a use case where I check the version of "the other svn client" (maybe an IDE integrated client), find that it is X.Y and then just use that version number instead of having to find out when the wc format of X.Y was actually introduced. Kind regards, Daniel Sahlberg
