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


From: <Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:41:06 -0500
Message-Id: <200103282041.PAA28795@tux.w3.org>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
> > The third proposed simplification was to defer the
> > "Update Option", with the intention of leaving it out
> > of the protocol unless its addition is more strongly
> > motivated than it is currently.  In particular, if you
> > want to expose an older version of a VCR, you can just
> > check out that VCR, copy that older version into the
> > checked-out resource, and then check it back in.  This
> > has the added advantage that this does not block future
> > work on a linear versioning server, the way an UPDATE
> > would (i.e. you can only check out the tip in a linear
> > versioning server).  It also has the advantage that it
> > is more compatible with the baseline and activity
> > features, that want to define states as merges of
> > baselines and activities, rather than manipulations of
> > individual versions.
> >
> > Any objections?
> I strongly object to this one.  If you have any respect for version history
> then using UPDATE to expose the older version of a vcr is *significantly*
> different to extending the tip with an equivalent version.
I agree.
BTW, could you expose an older version in a workspace without UPDATE ?

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 Wednesday, 28 March 2001 15:41:09 UTC

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