On Tuesday 17 September 2002 07:43 pm, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Steve Downey wrote: > > Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:13:59 -0400 > > From: Steve Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Scamp: Source > > Control Abstraction > > > > On Tuesday 17 September 2002 06:15 pm, Daniel Rall wrote: > > > In what ways does this differ from DAV? > > > > A SCM system can sit on top of DAV, or DAV + deltaV. Subversion, for > > example, is using deltaV as the communication protocol between its client > > and server. But DAV, in and of itself, isn't a generic SCM protocol. > > > > Certainly CVS doesn't speak DAV. > > But Subversion does, doesn't it?
Yes. Delta-V is the versioning protocol for DAV. DAV by itself is just checkout - edit -replace, with no real versioning. Delta-V adds the SCM notions of workspaces, versions and configurations. Its fundemental goal is to avoid the lost update problem, where A gets, B gets, B puts, A puts, and B's work is lost. But, even with Subversion, a random DAV/Delta-V client can't communicate correctly with the Subversion server. At least according to their docs. I don't know why not, but I suspect that it has a little to do with the fact that DAV amd delta-v treats the Web like a filesystem. Work is supposed to be done 'in-place' on the server. It looks to me as though the model is much closer to that of ClearCase, rather than that of CVS. In terms of SCaMp, I think the key questions are if this is to be a general purpose SCM interface, or a targeted subset of use to automated tools? I think the latter will have a much narrower interface than what is shown in WVCM. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
