Re: Fw: Discussion Topic: Simple Version Selection and Checkout
Sankar Virdhagriswaran (sv@crystaliz.com)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:48:02 -0500
Message-ID: <001e01be4d28$d7667800$b34006d1@honey-bee>
From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <sv@crystaliz.com>
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
Cc: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:48:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Fw: Discussion Topic: Simple Version Selection and Checkout
>I think that Sankar, Jim, and I all agree on the key point, namely that
>users (and tools) want to deal with normal understandable URL's, not URL's
>that have been munged and mangled with labels or server-defined
>transformations.
>
Yes. Very much so.
>and Configuration Management have another (a Workspace). Jim proposed
>that we simplify the protocol and just use a Workspace in both cases.
>(And I like Jim's proposal better than mine.)
>
With this summary, I understand a little better what the proposal is (should
be reading these documents full time which I don't - apologies).
>management. But we *also* want to manage the namespace, which is what
>makes the problem so "interesting" (:-).
I completely understand this. In our system, we have actually done both. It
helped us enormously on the implementation side (and hopefully on the client
side as well) to do what I proposed w.r.to namespaces. My suggestion is
based on implementation experience.
>Yes, I (and I'm sure, Jim) completely agree, as long as the explicit names
>are not to specific revisions, but rather to "what your workspace is
currently
>selecting at this URL".
We all agree.