Re: Version issues
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:01:31 -0800
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:01:31 -0800
Message-ID: <004201be7ca4$5896a120$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Cragun [mailto:BCragun.ORM2-1.OREM2@gw.novell.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 7:22 AM
To: ckaler@exchange.microsoft.com; jamsden@us.ibm.com
Cc: gclemm@atria.com; dgd@cs.bu.edu; ejw@ics.uci.edu;
bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com; ckaler@microsoft.com
Subject: RE: Version issues
First, a couple of issues not related to this thread:
1. These threads are still including Alan and Sridhar, neither of whom
are involved with the Versioning team now.
2. The volume of email being generated is overwhelming. While
discussions are great, might I suggest that, for instance, Jim and Chris
conduct a phone discussion to work through some of these issues then
post the resuling viewpoints? I was out of my office for two days this
week, and when I returned I had probably 30 WebDAV emails, almost
entirely from Chris and Jim. Printed out, it was a stack of about 60
pages. In two days! The reason this concerns me is that, the higher
the volume the harder it is for everyone to keep up. If we can
consolodate and perhaps resolve some of the one-on-one issues off the
list, the list traffic can be kept to the *resulting* discussions rather
than everything said by everyone. If in the side conversations an
interesting discussion arises, post that discussion to the list. If we
continue doing *everything* on the list it becomes very burdensome.
Some of us have a life outside of WebDAV. ;-)
3. Please don't go too many levels deep in the discussions. Emails
that have the original, embedded replies and comments-on-replies and
replies-to-comments-on-replies, well, they are very difficult to read.
Who is saying what? Didn't I already read that whole section before?
etc.
Now, on to my issues with the whole discussion thread.
1. I am against including parallel development in a simple
implementation (Level 1). The overhead that brings with it is
cumbersome, and the situation of having multiple checkouts on the same
revision is not what I would consider essential for a simple versioning
system. One checkout at a time ONLY. If a system requires parallel
development, let it implement it but don't require it for Level 1.
2. I believe it *is* worthwhile to discuss simple-vs-advanced at this
point. I see where you are coming from, Jim, in wanting to postpone
this discussion, but please realize there is also value in making sure
*now* that the levels can indeed be defined. The issues can be resolved
in parellel rather than having to wait a few months.
3. Chris, you seem to have a very solid understanding of the
simple-versioning needs. Thanks for your support! About the only thing
we differ on now seems to be the parallel development issue.
4. My thanks, too, to Geoff for all the time you have spent in making
sure you understand the DM world of versioning. You've been great.