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

Re: Splitting off core: where we stand

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:58:54 -0800
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010208005854.E26044@lyra.org>
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:12:49AM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
> split in two.  But if splitting the document results
> in deferring or delaying the standardization of the versioning
> options (as others have advocated),  the delay resulting
> from the splitting does prevent adoption of DeltaV
> by versioning systems that *require* some of those options
> for interoperation, and it appears that the majority of
> working group members that are planning on implementing
> DeltaV do require at least one of the options.


[ as I've said, I don't "require" anything, but am probably the wacko case ]

But let's look at some of the stated/implied/inferred implementations:

Subversion: bunch o' options
Oracle: requires workspaces and baselines
Rational: nothing stated publicly :-), but they're doing a bunch of options
Xythos: core

I'm seeing a tendency towards "as much as possible" rather than not. Xythos
is the odd man out, but that is based on pragmatism (chicken and egg: wait
for clients before building up the server). The rest have time and
inclination to build the bundle without (necessarily) waiting for the
clients to catch up (or they are building clients, too (such as SVN)).

So... there is certainly support for saying that core by itself is pretty
useless and not the focus of most implementors. And if that is the case,
then why bother to break it out (with the hope that it gets standardized
sooner rather than later).


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 03:57:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC