Re: Merge Example in <version-goals-01221999.htm>

jamsden@us.ibm.com
Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:04:28 -0500


From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira)
cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256703.004DC68B.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:04:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Merge Example in <version-goals-01221999.htm>



Sean,

Thanks for the thorough review, it's appreciated.

Merging makes no assumptions about the correctness of the merge. Joe is
free to do whatever he wants when merging in Jane's image_updates activity.
The is-derived-from relationship is from Joe's original checked in version
on the mainline activity, and there is an is-merged-from relationship with
the revision from Jane's activity. While the resource is checked out, Joe
can completely ignore Jane's changes, accept them all and note that some
are missing sending Jane a note to add the missing images, or create the
missing images himself. The versioning and merging semantics provide no
policy for this, only a controlled mechanism. From the conflict report, Joe
is sure he knows what needs to be done to merge Janes activity with his,
but it is up to him to decide how to do it. System supported auto-merging
could help with this, but there will always need to be human interaction
with any merge.