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