Re: CHECKIN/CHECKOUT - Mutable resources and a call for consensus
Sankar Virdhagriswaran (sv@crystaliz.com)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:01:17 -0500
Message-ID: <00f801be45a6$fa5ae0a0$cf4406d1@honey-bee>
From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <sv@crystaliz.com>
To: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:01:17 -0500
Subject: Re: CHECKIN/CHECKOUT - Mutable resources and a call for consensus
>For example, in systems that support parallel development, when activities
>are merged, the system can generate the conflicts list, and can maintain
>the list as they are resolved by the author. Having this capability is of
>enormous importance because it helps make sure changes aren't lost. If
>revisions are allowed to change, then an author cannot rely on the
>conflicts list. New conflicts could be created at any time without any
>record. Similarly, changing revisions of resources in a configuration used
>to deploy a web application compromises the ability to re-create a
>particular distribution.
Hear, Hear.
>Sure, changing a spelling mistake in a document
>might not have any significant effect on the configuration, but what about
>changing an assignment in a script that is part of an HTML page? Where does
>it stop? Is this something you want to leave up to any author to decide?
>Authoring web resources is much more than authoring static documents, and
>the versioning requirements are much stricter. The question is, do document
>management systems have the same semantics? Should they? Do they care about
>parallel development and configurations? How many options do we expect
>client applications to deal with? Are these issues we want to resolve in
>the protocol, or are they client issues?
>
IMHO these are important issues that the versioning working group should
deal with.