RE: Making "LABEL" optional

I agree with Jim - but I would also add that labels provide more than just 
a human readable name, they provide the ability to define a unique 
configuration of the resources in the repository.  One often does not want 
to get everything from the repository, just the subset of resources in the 
configuration identified by a unique label.  Baselines provide this type of 
functionality in advanced versioning and labels provide it in core.  If 
labels are removed from core, how is this accomplished?
-- Henry.

At 11:03 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Jim Whitehead wrote:

> > Lisa has asked that we make LABEL functionality optional
> > (i.e. move it into advanced).
> >
> > I personally have no problem with that, since labeling
> > is pretty much orthogonal to CHECKOUT/CHECKIN.
> >
> > Does anyone object? (and if so, please give some reasonably
> > specific rationale).
>
>I object.
>
>A label is a mechanism for giving a specific revision a human readable name,
>as opposed to the server (machine) generated version identifier.  While it
>is true that you can support linear versioning without the use of labels, it
>is similarly true that you *could* have a filesystem automatically generate
>an identifier for each file as it is created.  My point? The ability to
>assign a human-meaningful name to a specific revision allows people to more
>easily remember ones that are significant.  Instead of remembering that
>version 1.6 was the one sent out to customers, a label of "Release_A" can be
>used instead. Thus the label feature addresses a basic cognitive recall
>problem inherent in the use of machine generated identifiers for revisions.
>Since the machine generated identifiers are part of core versioning, the
>remedy for them should also be part of core.
>
>The vast majority of commercial and research versioning systems provide some
>mechanism for assigning a human readable name to a revision, typically in
>the form of a label.  I will take the liberty of assuming that they are not
>blindly coding a feature everyone else has, and have provided it because it
>offers a function their user base has found to be useful.  Doesn't it seems
>that such a commonly occurring versioning feature should also be part of our
>core versioning?
>
>Finally, I am sure that there exist user communities that are confused by
>the very notion of versioning, who will never use the label feature.
>Similarly, I am sure there are communities of novice word processing users
>that are confused by the very notion of word processing, and never use the
>spell checking feature.  Does that argue for removal of spell checking from
>"core" word processing? I think not.
>
>- Jim

=========================================
Henry K. Harbury <hharbury@assetvalue.com>
Managing Director
Investments Analytic, Inc.

Software Engineering
14933 SW 91st Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224

Voice: (503) 620-2566
Fax #: (503) 620-2856
==========================================

Received on Friday, 6 October 2000 17:38:48 UTC