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

RE: Basic resource lifecycle: a new proposal for handling "mutable versions"

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:43:38 -0800
To: <Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CNEEJCPIOLHKIOFNFJDPGEJJCBAA.lisa@xythos.com>
This is pretty good, and what's best of all, I understood it
immediately.  I'll think about it for a couple days.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
> Subject: Basic resource lifecycle: a new proposal for
> handling "mutable
> versions"
>
>
> After thinking again on what I wrote on lifecyles I find that
> perhaps my idea
> wasn't so bad. I'm not sure I want a different resource type
> with VARIANT-CONTROL.
>
> Why not define a version resource as having a state:
>
> VersionResource = VersionControlledResource VersionName State
> State           = "working" | "approved" # The names aren't
> that important.
> The lifecyle has two states: "working" -> "approved"
>
> I really wouldn't like to make a division between document
> and code versioning.
> Because code (Speaking  of a software release) also brings
> related documents.
> Requirements, Design specifications, User manuals ... These
> documents often are
> managed like Lisa describes it. This means they are mutable being
> in a "working" state, go to a "to-be-reviewed" state and
> finally are in state
> "approved". Just to give a simple example like you probably
> will find it in
> a bigger software project.
> So by introducing a state property we wouldn't introduce
> something that's out
> of the world. You will find lifecycles for documents in every
> decent Software
> Configuration Management Plan.
> Now for code we just do a CHECKIN and set state to "approved"
> (Skipping "working")
> For documents we can set state to "working". As long as the
> author thinks he
> could still change something he can leave it in this state.
> And anybody is
> warned by the state that it can still change.
> Would that be OK for you Lisa ?
> OTOH there will be a time when the document version is
> declared finished. Then just
> promote it to "approved". Being "approved" also will be
> required for a version
> to be usable as a base for delta storage of a successor
> version or inclusion in
> a baseline.
>
> Cheers, Edgar
>
>
> --
> edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
> *          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Native Oberon.         *
> Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 22:44:16 GMT

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