Re: DAV:predecessors vs. DAV:predecessor/DAV:merge-predecessors

jamsden@us.ibm.com
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:38:59 -0500 

From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525684E.0050A1B3.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:38:59 -0500
Subject: Re: DAV:predecessors vs. DAV:predecessor/DAV:merge-predecessors



Usually to figure out which revision to checkout the next time. This is a
line-of-descent issue. Presumably the checkout line-of-descent has some
different quality than any of the merge lines-of-descent. This is not
quantitative, just intuitive. So it has limited value. I guess the use case
is to select the merge target and distinguish it from the merge sources.
The target is the revision that is checked out (actually the associated
working resource) while the sources are all the other contributors. In some
sense, the target is "closer" to what one would want the final result to
be, or on the line-of-descent that should contain the result (e.g., the
mainline), or some such thing. This is pretty weak, but it seems like this
is something I have visualized many times when doing merges and examining
the revision history of a resource so I'm kind of reluctant to just give it
up.







"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>@w3.org on 12/20/99
10:36:33 PM

Sent by:  ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org


To:   ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:

Subject:  Re: DAV:predecessors vs. DAV:predecessor/DAV:merge-predecessors



I agree that one could distinguish one predecessor as being special
(i.e. the one that was "checked out" vs. the ones that were "merged"),
but what I was looking for is some convincing use case for how one
would *use* that information later on.

Cheers,
Geoff

   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   The only thing that's lost is the ability to distinguish a
   predecessor/successor relationship resulting from a direct
checkout/checkin
   from one that was created by a merge. Althought there's no real
difference,
   one might say that a merge implies different behavior by users that they
   might not want to loose.

   "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>@w3.org on 12/19/99

   A couple of weeks ago, I proposed simplifying the spec by unifying
   a revision's DAV:predecessor/DAV:merge-predecessors into a single
   DAV:predecessors.  The discussion has been generally supportive of
   this change, but there have been folks who didn't like it.

   I'd like to ask anyone who *doesn't* like the change to please submit
   a use case where this change produces a loss in functionality.
   If none can be identified, I'd like to make the simplification.

   Note that we can always add a DAV:predecessor property afterwards if
   we discover a need for it, but for now, I'd like to simplify the
   protocol as much as possible, unless the use case is a key one.