W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Workspaces, Baseline-Control und auto-version, MKCOL

From: Kirmse, Daniel <daniel.kirmse@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:06:16 +0100
Message-ID: <59357A260E15D311B5A60008C75D3530068B4743@dbwdfx13.wdf.sap-ag.de>
To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Ellison [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]
>Sent: Freitag, 11. Januar 2002 11:48
>To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Workspaces, Baseline-Control und auto-version, MKCOL
>"Kirmse, Daniel" <daniel.kirmse@sap.com>
>> Suppose a workspace WS with uri /ws that is under baseline-
>> control and the auto-version property of the version controlled
>> collection representing the baseline controlled workspace WS
>> is set to checkout-checkin.
>When you say "the version controlled collection representing 
>the baseline 
>controlled workspace" do you mean the _version-controlled 
>of the workspace or the workspace itself?  I'll assume you mean the 

Right assumption

>> Now suppose a MKCOL request on uri /ws/folder. With that
>> "directory" folder is created within the workspace WS. Does the
>> creation of this folder cause a new baseline to be created
>> within the baseline-history of the vcc representing WS?
>No.  Modifications to the resources making up the 
>configuration are not 
>considered modifications to the version-controlled 
>configuration resource 
>itself.  If they were, you would be able to lock an entire 
>etc. by locking this one resource.

Right here is my mistake! So with that I also assume it would not.
I mixed up (again) workspace and the vcc.

>> I assume it would do, if so is it a MUST or a SHOULD? From my
>> reading I assume MUST.
>I assume it would not.  Which part of the spec. are you referring to?

Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 06:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC