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

Re: Actually, you don't need COPY or MOVE, what you really seem to want is CLONE.

From: Rick Rupp <rick.rupp@merant.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:08:25 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010619170409.00a545b0@beavmail.merant.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree with the group that there are other ways to track relationships 
between version histories. If this is the only use case for the 
precursor-set and the consensus of the group is it should be dropped, I'm 
okay with this decision.

I understand what a variant is however I don't fully understand how the 
precursor-set is used to create one in a workspace. If that is how variants 
are created then I recommend the precursor-set be kept and moved from the 
version-control feature into the workspace feature.

At 10:34 AM 6/19/01 -0400, Jim Amsden 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.
>
>I also agree with Geoff in that there are good arguments either way.
>However I'd lean in the direction of leaving things out if there is any
>doubt. They can always be added in later when we have more experience and
>the use cases are more crisp. We don't want to hold up the protocol on
>such issues either if we can help it.
>
>
>
>
>I still can't see where it is useful to know about two different version
>histories, one that you have poor information on (the source of the
>COPY) and an old version history that is no longer relevent to the
>actual content (since you overlayed it).
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hall
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:30 PM
> > To: 'Rick Rupp'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none>
> >
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > I see no difference between creating a new version from
> > scratch and copying data from somewhere else to create a new
> > version from scratch. If I open file1 and then do a save-as
> > on file2, the server doesn't know and precussor isn't set in
> > any case.  So why is it so important to know that someone
> > grabbed a copy of file1's current version and copied it to
> > file2 without editing it first?  If you really want the
> > version history, use MOVE not COPY.
> >
> > Do you have a 'for example' use case where that origin
> > information is valuable?  And would it still remain valuable
> > after a few more edits were done?
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rick Rupp
> > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:39 PM
> > > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > > Subject: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none>
> > >
> > >
> > > The precursor-set property seems to be an important concept
> > > of a versions
> > > history. Without it there is no indication that a version has a
> > > relationship to another version history.
> > >
> > > I don't think it will be unusual for a client to create a new
> > > version by
> > > copying from a different version history. Will it be
> > > important to know the
> > > new version came from a different version history? I think
> > > the answer is
> > > yes and the precursor-set facilitates this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 20:10:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT