Julian,
On Nov 27, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Jan Algermissen wrote:
Forgot to insert:
What about:
When a resource is put under version control, it becomes a
"versioned resource". Many servers protect versioned resources
from modifications by considering them "checked in", and by
requiring a "checkout" operation before modification, and a
"checkin" operation to go back to the "checked-in" state. Other
servers allow modification and perfrom versioning without
requiring an explicit checkout operation.
I feel there should be the notion of 'modification of checked-out
working copy' in there but I don't mean to say that your above
wording isn't suitable also.
Jan
>> ...
Hi Jan,
if I understand you correctly you say that the proposed text
explaining checkin/checkout should mention that it applies to
modifying the working copy.
What I tried to say is that the notion of working-copy goes hand in
hand with the notion of checking out. Or, to view it from a different
angle: when a server is versioning, it can do so either implicitly (on
its own) upon a modification of the resource that is being versioned
by the server or it can require the user to do it explicitly by
cheking out->working copy->update working copy->check-in. Without a
notion of check-in the working-copy notion is useless because it will
never lead to a new version.
I believe that's correct, but would require a forward reference to
the term "working copy" that I'd like to avoid. (If you meant to say
something else, please clarify).
I think the notion of versioning is orthogonal to the notion of
checkout/checkin and the draft seems to be centered around it. If a
resource is being versioned by the server, all relations make sense,
except working-copy. Only for working-copy you need to introduce
checkin/checkout. It is just another means putting the versioning
'action' in the hands of the client.
(But please takte this only as input - the draft just triggered an
analysis process and that keeps going :-)
I cannot judge if it is significant enough to justify work on the
draft or even this exchange...
With respect to replacing
"Other servers allow modification, in which case the checkout/
checkin operation may happen implicitly."
by
"Other servers allow modification and perform versioning without
requiring an explicit checkout operation."
...: this really seems to be equivalent; any particular reason why
you feel your text is clearer?
The latter IMHO takes the focus away from checkin/checkout which I see
as an absolute edge-case (being non DAV and
non CMIS biased :-)
But then....word smithing I guess.
Jan
Best regards, Julian
--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen
Mail: [email protected]
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------
