- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:58:54 -0800
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:12:49AM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: >... > split in two. But if splitting the document results > in deferring or delaying the standardization of the versioning > options (as others have advocated), the delay resulting > from the splitting does prevent adoption of DeltaV > by versioning systems that *require* some of those options > for interoperation, and it appears that the majority of > working group members that are planning on implementing > DeltaV do require at least one of the options. Right. [ as I've said, I don't "require" anything, but am probably the wacko case ] But let's look at some of the stated/implied/inferred implementations: Subversion: bunch o' options Oracle: requires workspaces and baselines Rational: nothing stated publicly :-), but they're doing a bunch of options Xythos: core I'm seeing a tendency towards "as much as possible" rather than not. Xythos is the odd man out, but that is based on pragmatism (chicken and egg: wait for clients before building up the server). The rest have time and inclination to build the bundle without (necessarily) waiting for the clients to catch up (or they are building clients, too (such as SVN)). So... there is certainly support for saying that core by itself is pretty useless and not the focus of most implementors. And if that is the case, then why bother to break it out (with the hope that it gets standardized sooner rather than later). Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 03:57:23 UTC