Re: A question about branching, merging

Eric Sedlar (esedlar@us.oracle.com)
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:06:03 -0800 

Message-ID: <005e01bf41af$45edd540$79442382@us.oracle.com>
From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
To: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:06:03 -0800
Subject: Re: A question about branching, merging

I agree that keeping them separate is the right idea.  There's no reason to
lose this information, which could be very useful for clients.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: A question about branching, merging


>
>
> I think there is something very different about a line of descent created
> by linear checkout/checkin and merging. In the linear case, one can be
> reasonably sure the working resource was derived from the predecessor, but
> in merging, there is a weaker (or at least different) relationship
> resulting from a very different operation. I think these relationships
> should be kept separate.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> on 12/08/99 09:09:38 AM
>
> To:   ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> cc:
>
> Subject:  Re: A question about branching, merging
>
>
>
>
> I just added to the spec this more detailed description of how
> merging is performed using the protocol.  In the process of
> doing so, the assymetry of picking one merge contributor to
> be the "predecessor" and the rest as "merge-predecessors" became
> evident.
>
> I know there was one advocate during the breakout in Washington
> of keeping these properties distinct, but I remain unconvinced.
> So I'd like to hash this out on the mailing list so that we
> can either convince ourselves that this distinction is important,
> or convince ourselves that the spec. should be simplified by replacing
> the four properties:
>   DAV:predecessor, DAV:successors, DAV:merge-predecessors,
> DAV:merge-sucessors
> with the two properties:
>   DAV:predecessors, DAV:successors.
>
> Note: I will interpret silence to mean consent that we simplify (:-).
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>