W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

Not missing the precursor

From: <Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:26:22 -0400
Message-Id: <200106192026.QAA09066@tux.w3.org>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
"Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I guess I agree with John. This sort of information is generally kept in 
> comments or application specific properties. The question we have to ask 
> ourselves is if there is any need to have precursor information available 
> in an interoperable way. I don't know off the top of my head any other 
> system that supports this, but it could be something I just never used.
IMHO the precursor set isn't worth the trouble.
In the past I worked a lot with source code in RCS. When I had the need to take
something form another version history I normally dropped most of the old
versions history ($Log$) and added a comment which explained the rationale for
the starting a new version history.
I guess even with precursor information you would need to do some explaining.
And with subsequent further changes the information from which foreign version
the resource came looses it's value. As long as the other version history still
exists you can easily go back and find the precursor version by some poking
around and diffing. This seems accectable to me because I see it as a rare
So I wouldn't miss the precursor set.

Cheers, Edgar
edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
*          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Active Oberon.         *
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 16:26:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC