Teleconference minutes -- December 13, 1999
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:04:29 -0800
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:04:29 -0800
Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJGEHICKAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Teleconference minutes -- December 13, 1999
Versioning Teleconference
Monday, December 13, 1999
Attending: Jim Amsden, Geoff Clemm, Eric Sedlar, Neil Weber, Jim Whitehead,
Tim Ellison, Chris Kaler
DAV:predecessor/DAV:merge-predecessors vs. DAV:predecessors issue:
Issue: Why you want this: need to know where to merge to. Might also want to
distinguish between a checkout for an edit, and a checkout for a merge.
Rebuttal: this is an activity to activity relationship, not a version tree
relationship. It's undesirable to use the predecessor relationships to
determine where to merge, since there are some cases where this will lead to
merging the wrong version.
Participants agreed to only use DAV:predecessors, and not have a special
DAV:merge-predecessors relationship. However, Chris joined late, and
disagrees. Chris and Geoff will discuss this offline. All agreed to use a
MERGE method to create the multiple DAV:predecessors relationships, and to
create a working resource where the client will deposit the merged results.
It will also be possible to delete some DAV:predecessors relationships (but
only before the merge working resource is checked in).
Versioning locks issue. Some concern over the computational cost of
recomputing revision selection rules after they are modified by a lock. Some
discussion on whether a lock should prevent merging within a versioned
resource, or just on a particular working resource, or just on a particular
branch, or just for a particular revision. No agreement reached, will
discuss this topic during the next call.
*** Meeting adjourned ***