- From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:10:13 +0000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote: > From: Tim Ellison [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com] > > "Kirmse, Daniel" <daniel.kirmse@sap.com> > > > Suppose a workspace WS with uri /ws that is under baseline- > > control and the auto-version property of the version controlled > > configuration representing the baseline controlled workspace WS > > is set to checkout-checkin. > > Now suppose a MKCOL request on uri /ws/folder. With that > > "directory" folder is created within the workspace WS. Does the > > creation of this folder cause a new baseline to be created > > within the baseline-history of the vcc representing WS? > > No. Modifications to the resources making up the configuration are > not considered modifications to the version-controlled > configuration resource itself. If they were, you would be able to > lock an entire configuration etc. by locking this one resource. > > Well, depends what you mean by "modification". If it is a change that > results in a change to the DAV:checked-in property of any member of > the baseline controlled collection (e.g. CHECKIN, UPDATE, MERGE), > then it is considered a change to the > version-controlled configuration, and such a change MUST be > rejected unless the VCCn is checked out, or if auto-versioning is > appropriately set for the VCCn. > > But if it is not a change to a version-controlled resource (such as > a MKCOL that creates a non-version-controlled collection), then > I agree that it is not a modification to the VCCn. > > > I assume it would do, if so is it a MUST or a SHOULD? From my > > reading I assume MUST. > > I assume it would not. Which part of the spec. are you referring to? > > Note that the DAV:modify-configuration postconditions in sections 12.12, > 12.13, and 12.14 define the semantics related to this question. Ok, that is clear. Apologies to Daniel for my misleading response. That is not how I remembered it. I'm left wondering why this is so. On the face of it, these postconditions mean that where a baseline-controlled collection has a checked-in version-controlled configuration there is a guarantee that the membership of the configuration (rooted at the baseline-controlled collection) is the same as that represented by the checked-in version-controlled configuration -- however, that only covers the checked-in version-controlled members of the configuration ... there can be variance by non-version-controlled members and/or checked-out version-controlled members. So what is the value of this postcondition? Regards, Tim
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 11:10:49 UTC