W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Last call: range locking

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:51:52 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-970304185152Z-1957@INET-04-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: "'Christopher Seiwald'" <seiwald@perforce.com>, "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
This is not the Versioning over HTTP group. This is the Distributed
Authoring AND Versioning over HTTP group. Distributed Authoring systems
have been using partial locks since their inception. Not only is new
ground not being broken, we are proposing not providing a feature that
has been universally provided in distributed/multi-user authoring
systems for decades.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Christopher Seiwald [SMTP:seiwald@perforce.com]
>Sent:	Monday, March 03, 1997 9:18 PM
>To:	Yaron Goland; ejw@ics.uci.edu; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>Subject:	RE: Last call: range locking
>| Given that our goal is to provide for a distributed authoring and
>| versioning system that will be implemented (I mean it isn't like this is
>| our Phd. or something ;) and given that range locks are such a
>| fundamental feature that every major operating system, document creation
>| system, and database system provides them in one form or another, it
>| would seem that range locks are absolutely in scope.
>But few (no?) existing version control systems provide range locking.
>So you'd be breaking new ground -- not necessarily the best thing for
>a standards body.
>Christopher Seiwald     Perforce Software          1-510-865-8720
>seiwald@perforce.com     f-f-f-fast SCM   http://www.perforce.com       
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 13:51:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:10 UTC