Re: Version issues

Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:02:54 -0800 

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:02:54 -0800
Message-ID: <004601be7ca4$8a389f80$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Kaler (Exchange) [mailto:ckaler@exchange.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:31 PM
To: 'Bruce Cragun'; jamsden@us.ibm.com
Cc: gclemm@atria.com; dgd@cs.bu.edu; ejw@ics.uci.edu;
bradley_sergeant@intersolv.com
Subject: RE: Version issues


2. The volume of email being generated is overwhelming.  
[CK] I think the level of mail is great -- we need to get
     exposure.  However, we need to get it onto the alias
     and not amongst ourselves.  I know it is difficult to
     get all this mail, but the alternative is to have
     too many isolated conversations.

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.
[CK] I agree with you.

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.
[CK] I agree here too.

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.
[CK] Thanks -- I'm a DM vendor too you know :-).  I don't think
     that parallel development belongs in level 1.  However, I
     strongly believe that basic parallel development is important
     without having to take on all of the level 2 features.  I've
     been thinking that we should consider 3 levels if we can get
     the elements to build on each other: 1) basic versioning, 2) basic
     parallel development, 3) configurations, advanced versioning, and
     advanced parallel development.