Re: Versioning goals doc input

Geoffrey M. Clemm (
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:42:27 -0500

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:42:27 -0500
Message-Id: <9902221742.AA04036@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: Re: Versioning goals doc input

I agree with each of Brad's points (especially the one of thanking Jim
for doing a great job on the goals document!).  One suggestion for
rewording the descriptive text of Goal 2:

Replace "Versioning capabilities must not depend on the media type" with
"The versioning protocol should not depend on the media type".  I believe
that this was really what this goal was about, and this is then compatible
with a server doing special things for different media types.

A few additional comments:

Definition 5:  Just use "initial revision" for this concept.  I'd like to
use the term "root" to refer to the "root collection of a configuration",
and there is no need for using "root revision" as a synonym for
"initial revision".

Definition 9: Replace "derived" with "checked-out".  It doesn't do any good
to define one term ("predecessor") with another undefined term ("derived").
Then a revision can have one predecessor and multiple successors (which
forms a tree, rather than a DAG).

Then add a new definition -
Merge-Source: The "merge-source"s of a revision are those revisions that
have been merged with the predecessor to form this revision.