Message-ID: <001e01be4d28$d7667800$b34006d1@honey-bee> From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <email@example.com> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:48:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Fw: Discussion Topic: Simple Version Selection and Checkout >I think that Sankar, Jim, and I all agree on the key point, namely that >users (and tools) want to deal with normal understandable URL's, not URL's >that have been munged and mangled with labels or server-defined >transformations. > Yes. Very much so. >and Configuration Management have another (a Workspace). Jim proposed >that we simplify the protocol and just use a Workspace in both cases. >(And I like Jim's proposal better than mine.) > With this summary, I understand a little better what the proposal is (should be reading these documents full time which I don't - apologies). >management. But we *also* want to manage the namespace, which is what >makes the problem so "interesting" (:-). I completely understand this. In our system, we have actually done both. It helped us enormously on the implementation side (and hopefully on the client side as well) to do what I proposed w.r.to namespaces. My suggestion is based on implementation experience. >Yes, I (and I'm sure, Jim) completely agree, as long as the explicit names >are not to specific revisions, but rather to "what your workspace is currently >selecting at this URL". We all agree.