Re: CHECKIN/CHECKOUT - Versioning Policies?

Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:29:50 -0500


Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:29:50 -0500
Message-Id: <9901200729.AA14180@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: yarong@microsoft.com
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08792D52@RED-MSG-59> (message
Subject: Re: CHECKIN/CHECKOUT - Versioning Policies?

   From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>

   Welcome to the fourth and final entry in my series of comments on Geoffrey's
   proposal.

And my congratulations to Yaron for his detailed comments (and to anyone
that has made it this far :-).

   > Specifying CHECKOUT/CHECKOUT-NEW Policy
   > 
   > For versioning individual documents, it is sufficient to just let the
   > user select CHECKOUT or CHECKOUT-NEW, as they see fit.  For
   > versioning sets of related resources that are being modified in
   > parallel by multiple users over the course of multiple sessions, it is
   > essential that the server provide a mechanism for the client to store
   > its versioning policy in a form that can be queried (and updated) by
   > multiple clients over multiple sessions.  This is especially true when
   > the CHECKOUT choice for a particular resource is dependent on the
   > current state of the revision graph for that resource.  I propose that
   > the "workspace" resource that stores the version-selection-rules is
   > the appropriate place to store this information, since the 
   > modification
   > and creation of new revisions must be synchronized with the
   > version-selection-rules, or else newly created revisions might
   > disappear from view as soon as they are checked in.
   > 

   Client versioning policy? I thought we killed this back in '97!

Ooops.  Clearly I used the wrong term (:-).  After reading Yaron's comments
on this topic, it's clear what I meant by "versioning policy" is different from
what was discussed on the list, because I cannot see how what I intend by
the term can result in any of the dire effects Yaron describes.

I'll read back over the indicated archival mail discussions, and then
should be able to clarify the distinction between what I mean by it,
and what was discussed in '97.

Cheers,
Geoff