- From: Rick Rupp <rick.rupp@merant.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:08:25 -0700
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree with the group that there are other ways to track relationships between version histories. If this is the only use case for the precursor-set and the consensus of the group is it should be dropped, I'm okay with this decision. I understand what a variant is however I don't fully understand how the precursor-set is used to create one in a workspace. If that is how variants are created then I recommend the precursor-set be kept and moved from the version-control feature into the workspace feature. At 10:34 AM 6/19/01 -0400, Jim Amsden wrote: >I guess I agree with John. This sort of information is generally kept in >comments or application specific properties. The question we have to ask >ourselves is if there is any need to have precursor information available >in an interoperable way. I don't know off the top of my head any other >system that supports this, but it could be something I just never used. > >I also agree with Geoff in that there are good arguments either way. >However I'd lean in the direction of leaving things out if there is any >doubt. They can always be added in later when we have more experience and >the use cases are more crisp. We don't want to hold up the protocol on >such issues either if we can help it. > > > > >I still can't see where it is useful to know about two different version >histories, one that you have poor information on (the source of the >COPY) and an old version history that is no longer relevent to the >actual content (since you overlayed it). > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hall > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:30 PM > > To: 'Rick Rupp'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > Subject: RE: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none> > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > I see no difference between creating a new version from > > scratch and copying data from somewhere else to create a new > > version from scratch. If I open file1 and then do a save-as > > on file2, the server doesn't know and precussor isn't set in > > any case. So why is it so important to know that someone > > grabbed a copy of file1's current version and copied it to > > file2 without editing it first? If you really want the > > version history, use MOVE not COPY. > > > > Do you have a 'for example' use case where that origin > > information is valuable? And would it still remain valuable > > after a few more edits were done? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rick Rupp > > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:39 PM > > > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > > Subject: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none> > > > > > > > > > The precursor-set property seems to be an important concept > > > of a versions > > > history. Without it there is no indication that a version has a > > > relationship to another version history. > > > > > > I don't think it will be unusual for a client to create a new > > > version by > > > copying from a different version history. Will it be > > > important to know the > > > new version came from a different version history? I think > > > the answer is > > > yes and the precursor-set facilitates this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 20:10:48 UTC