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

RE: Splitting off core: where we stand

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:06:13 -0800
To: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>

thanks, greg, that's exactly right.

I'll admit I also classed "web-site source control management" along
with traditional C/C++/java/whatever source code control, which is what
might have confused some people about how I was classifying different
implementors.  Web sites with source code under versioning control may
well have needs for branching, baselines, I don't know what else.  You
need to worry about files being included in other files, using the
correct stylesheet, and so on.  One might reasonably use several of the
advanced versioning scenarios to do serious web-site management.

IMHO, doing "simple document versioning", the server never needs to
worry about how one document relates to another.  Each document is
stand-alone.  No need for baselines, activities, workspaces, or labels.

Of course there's grey area, because many web pages are authored under
exactly the same conditions as "simple document versioning".  And there
are also large, complex content management problems, like authoring
technical manuals, where separate resources *do* interact.  I'l have to
come up with a better term for what I mean.  Maybe:
 "Versioning system for stand-alone resources"

Would my statement be true if I said I was the only person designing a
"versioning system for stand-alone resources"?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Greg Stein
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 12:22 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Splitting off core: where we stand
> I believe Lisa was referring to DeltaV servers. Exchange
> isn't. If we go on
> that line, mod_dav isn't about source control either.
> [ mod_dav as part of Apache 2.0, when the Subversion backend
> is plugged
>   in... now *that* is very much intended for source control.
> (but it can do
>   any kind of document, of course) ]
> However, I think Lisa is being incorrect here. We know Oracle is doing
> DeltaV work. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it is for content
> management rather than source control. Oracle's value
> proposition is a lot
> higher for large content management problems, compared to
> applying Oracle to
> a source control situation :-)
> [ you'll never catch me installing Oracle so that I can
> manage a few dozen
>   .c files! :-) ]
> Cheers,
> -g
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:26:18AM -0800, Ron Jacobs wrote:
> > Lisa,
> >
> > Just for the record: Our WebDAV/DeltaV server is also "not doing
> > source code control" and I have read the entire document (several
> > times :)
> >
> > BTW, there's another (more famous) WebDAV server that isn't about
> > source control: Microsoft Exchange 2000 :)
> >
> > Thanks, Ron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:11 AM
> > To: Greg Stein; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Splitting off core: where we stand
> >
> > ...  Xythos is the only WebDAV
> > server that is not doing source code control, that is planning to
> > implement any part of DeltaV.  I think I'm the only person
> designing a
> > versioning server that isn't for source control, that has
> bothered to
> > read the entire spec ...
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 19:07:33 UTC

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