- From: Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 11:01:52 -0800
- To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Cc: muniz@inf.puc-rio.br, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I guess I think of it a little different. There is an "un-modifiable" list and a "modifiable" one. The first is managed by the server and represents what the server knows to be correct. The second is managed by the user and could be totally wrong. I think both of our points are valid and true and that we are essentially saying the same thing. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 8:26 AM To: Chris Kaler Cc: muniz@inf.puc-rio.br; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Version merging questions From: Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com> What I believe we have specified to date is that there are "conceptually" two revision graphs. There is a graph that the server maintains and asserts is correct and there is a graph that is specified by the client that may be incorrect. I disagree. It is not an issue of correctness or incorrectness, but rather an issue of modifiable and non-modifiable predecessor relations. The reason to maintain a tree of non-modifiable predecessor relations is just a recognition of the fact that many implementations of branching and delta storage make it very expensive or even impossible to move a version from one branch to another. Logically, the predecessor in this tree is no more "correct" than the modifiable predecessors created by the MERGE method. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 1998 14:01:58 UTC