- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:11:19 -0700
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:19:58PM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > A version-controlled configuration is always associated with a > baseline-controlled collection (and is used to capture the state > of the configuration rooted at that baseline-controlled collection). > Since you can always check-out/modify/check-in the members of the > baseline-controlled collection, this effectively lets you modify > that membership of that baseline-controlled collection, unconstrained > by the current state of the associated version-controlled configuration. In the above description, you're modifying the baseline-controlled collection (BCC). You aren't modifying the VCC. I still see no point in putting the VCC in a permanently-checked-out state. If you're concerned about consistency between the BCC and the baseline referred to by the checked-in VCC, then the answer is to make the BCC readonly. Not to say the VCC is always checked out. Checking out the VCC would then allow the BCC to be modified. I have no opinion on whether a server can always (force) a VCC to remain checked out. But the spec should not mandate that situation. [ in Subversion, the VCC cannot be checked out and the BCC is readonly; you must use working resources to create a new baseline, all of which is then merged into the BCC and VCC ] Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 07:09:45 UTC