- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:57:22 -0800
- To: "James J. Hunt \(by way of \"Ralph R. Swick\" <swick@w3.org>\)" <jjh@ira.uka.de>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: "James J. Hunt" <jjh@ira.uka.de> > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > Labels in DeltaV > ================ > > One of the recent changes in DeltaV was to remove labels from the core > versioning part and put them into the options part of the protocol. > We strongly suggest to undo this change. Even if there exist two or > three revision control systems that do not use labels, labels are > essential for identifying sets of associated files in a repository of > versions. And, actually, they are really easy to implement > (especially on top of a WebDAV implementation that requires built-in > mechanisms for property storage). Your assumption here is that there ARE associated files in a repository of versions. Why need there be? There are repositories of documents -- like mine at http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public -- which have versions but aren't associated with each other. Are you implementing a revision control system for source code? That could be the disconnect between us. When repositories are not intended for source control, but just for ordinary documents, they require far fewer features. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0062.html If LABEL was a simple property, I wouldn't care, but since it's a complex property plus a new method to modify the set of labels, I'd rather it be optional. Let me put it this way. What would you like to accomplish that can't be accomplished if labeling is in the optional part of the protocol? Lisa
Received on Friday, 1 December 2000 11:55:22 UTC