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

Re: Mutable Versions

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:45:50 -0800
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010106134550.F17220@lyra.org>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 01:26:04PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
> 
>    From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
> 
>    What you propose makes it impossible for a core-versioning server to
>    implement mutable versioning: the server (and clients!) would have to
>    implement labels as well.
> 
> A server always had to implement more than core versioning in order to
> support mutable versioning (mutable versioning was always an option,
> and one that many, if not most, versioning servers were not going to
> implement).

Subversion definitely won't be implementing it.

>...
>    I would support having an "ismutable" flag in CORE, because it is
>    trivial for a server that does not support mutable versions to set this
>    always to "false", and vice versa of course.
> 
> This effectively forces every client to be a mutable versioning client,
> or to refuse to talk to a mutable versioning server.  Currently, there

The SVN client will refuse to talk to mutable versioning servers as that
option is currently defined. We just depend too much on the version
resources being immutable for all time.

>...
> So that's why the introduction states that "these options have been
> defined to be orthogonal".  Unfortunately, this is very much not true
> about the current mutable versioning option, which if supported
> seriously breaks a key semantic (some would argue, *the* key semantic)
> of the core versioning protocol.

Yup. I never liked 'em, but figured somebody required them for something, so
I didn't scream :-)

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 16:46:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT