Re: Workspaces as versionable resources

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm (geoffrey.clemm@rational.com)
Date: Sun, May 21 2000

  • Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available"

    Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
    Message-Id: <200005210435.AAA09411@tantalum.atria.com>
    From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
    Subject: Re: Workspaces as versionable resources
    
    
       From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
    
       Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com> wrote:
       > I would like to declare my dissatisfaction with workspaces as versionable
       > resources.
    
       Me too. I'm not sure what you win with that.
    
    Done.  (Replaced by a MKBASELINE request, where a baseline is an immutable
    snapshot of the revisions selected by a workspace).
    
       > We appear to have lost two useful concepts.
       I don't know whether we lost them.
    
    I believe not (see previous response to Tim's message).
    
       > (1) Configurations, (which could be used to capture the state of a
       > workspace target selection),
       > (2) Deep versioning of collections
    
       Isn't that just called a revision of a collection now ?  Where we
       assume that all members of the collection must also be revisions.
    
    No, it's just called a baseline.  A revision of a collection contains
    bindings to versioned resources (not other revisions).  A baseline
    selects a set of revisions.
    
       But whatever we call it. I want "deep versioning of collections".
    
    You got 'em (just remember to call them "baselines" :-).
    
       What I'm not sure about is, whether WebDAV wants to help with SW
       development.  Should it be good for that too ? Can you base stuff
       like in CVS, Clearcase or PVCS Dimensions on WebDAV ?
    
    Definitely yes (although you need advanced versioning).
    
       BTW, I just try to implement workspaces for my Oberon System. At the moment
       I imagine a workspace being similar to a Clearcase view (Hi Geoff :-) with
       a config spec (rsr) of checked out, newest revision.
    
    In order to implement the "SET-DEFAULT" method, you'll probably want
    to use a label rule, rather than /main/LATEST.
    
       Then a second vote concerning UNCHECKOUT:
       Good: CHECKOUT abort	It concernes something that was done with CHECKOUT
       Acceptable: UNCHECKOUT  Even it's creating another method.
       No,no: CHECKIN abort    CHECKIN should be about a new version. This relation
    	   would be rather farfetched in this case.
    
    Sounds like the only one that is acceptable to everyone is keeping UNCHECKOUT.
    
    Cheers,
    Geoff