commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weber, Lance" <Lance.We...@McKesson.com>
Subject RE: [Proposal] Scamp: Source Control Abstraction
Date Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:05:57 GMT
>>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 initial intent is to provide an interface for use by automated
tools. This seems to be something of an afterthought for a lot of the scm
packages, but given the trend towards continuous integration it's definitely
an emerging need.

I don't have a lot of Jakarta project experience, so I'm wondering what the
next step is...any feedback would be great.


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Downey [mailto:steve.downey@netfolio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:21 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Scamp: Source Control Abstraction


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 <steve.downey@netfolio.com>
> > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> 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:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
 
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is 
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential 
and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message