[ietf-dav-versioning] <none>
jamsden@us.ibm.com
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:07:50 -0400
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567F4.006EC969.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:07:50 -0400
Subject: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none>
<jra> I think a baseline of a member collection of a parent collection
is independent of baselines of its parent. When the parent is
baselined, the selected revisions of its members are added to the
resultant configuration. A child collection can then have a baseline
of its own which results in an entirely different and independent
configuration with perhaps very different revisions selected. </jra>
<gmc> I go the other way. A baseline of a versioned collection must
contain all the members of that collection (to an arbitrary depth).
So creating a baseline of a collection creates sub-baselines of any
sub-collections that are baselined. Something I would support would
be a property on a versioned collection revision that says whether a
baseline of a parent collection should contain a baseline of that versioned
collection or a revision of that versioned collection (and its members).
<jra>
But a baseline of a versioned collection would contain recursively a revision of
all its members, so there is no need to have baselines of its members. Members
of a collection may be reused for different purposes. Each instance of reuse may
require different revisions. For example, consider a project that contains a
number of Java packages. One may want to reuse the project as a whole, or just
one of the packages. A baseline of the project would support the first use case
while a baseline of the package would support the second.
I don't see the difference between a baseline of a parent collection containing
baselines of its member collections, or a revision of those members and
recursively revisions of all their members. Seems like this is the definition of
a baseline.
</jra>