Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 4/24/00 (Monday) *1-2pm*EST"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC027A2033@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: "DeltaV (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:47:44 -0400
Subject: RE: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 4/17/00 (Monday) 2-3pmEST
Attending: Tim Ellison, Jim Whitehead, Geoff Clemm
We briefly discussed SET-TARGET. Jim asked whether
versioning users (as opposed to versioning clients)
wanted to directly manipulate labels. Geoff's response
was that in his experience, users normally no longer directly
work with labels once workspaces are available, so
it is appropriate to have workspaces conceptually
"replace" labels if workspaces are supported.
So while a core client would deal with a "tested" label,
an advanced client would deal with a "tested" workspace.
We spent most of the time discussing dynamic revision
selection. The main arguments against dynamic revision
selection was that dynamic revision selection is incompatible
with locking. To enforce locking, all revision selection
rules in all workspaces would have to be evaluated before
allowing any change to versioning metadata,
to verify that the change would not violate a lock. This is
infeasible to implement efficiently. We concluded that it would
be unacceptable to force a client to chose between locking and
versioning, when we have an alternative (static revision selection)
that is compatible with locking.
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 12:03 PM
To: DeltaV (E-mail)
Subject: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 4/17/00 (Monday) 2-3pmEST
phone: 888 819 8909 pass-code#97985
Agenda:
- Is SET-TARGET an appropriate marshalling for
setting a label, setting the default revision,
and setting the revision selected by a workspace.
- Do we leave a "placeholder" for dynamic revision
selection by workspaces, or do we only support static
revision selection.
h