Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Re: Branching, repositories, and activities"
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 23:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007020330.XAA02507@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Branching, repositories, and activities
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
... are you proposing
that branching be supported directly as "simple activities" for servers
that don't want to support full activity semantics?
I wasn't proposing that the protocol identify two kinds of activities,
but rather that the protocol be designed so that a single client could
interoperate with a server that only supports per-resource activities,
as well as with a server that supports an activity that collects
revisions from multiple versioned resources.
I think branching is an implementation mechanism supporting
parallel development or multiple development lines-of-descent while
activities are a more logical way of expressing the same
problems. I don't think we need two ways of expressing these
problems, and servers are free to implement activities using
branching.
There is no proposal that we have two ways to express the same
problem. The questions are:
- should you be able to say "check this out (or in) in a new activity"
- should you be able to say "create an activity" (independent of any
checkout).
Perhaps the easiest answer is to just say "yes" to both, and therefore
both allow "CHECKOUT/new-activity" as well as MKACTIVITY (which allows
the creation of an activity that is not yet associated with any
versioned resource).
Cheers,
Geoff