Hello Paul,
On myExperiment we used to have wiki style versioning, whereby any
change to title/description would create a new version. However, we
then moved to a more explicit versioning model whereby new versions
were only created when a new workflow definition file was uploaded, so
this is controlled by the user not the system. In the case of Taverna
1.x workflows, this would be different SCUFL files.
If we take for example this workflow:
http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/10
... you can see that there are 4 versions available, each with it's
own SCUFL file (in theory, all different). Titles/description can then
be modified for each version individually. Individual versions can be
addressed via a URL, eg:
http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/10?version=3
Also, when uploading a new version, the uploader can provide revision
comments to explain changes. These are then shown in the 'versions'
tab on the workflow page.
We are discussing removing the ability to delete versions and instead
allow marking them as "deprecated" or so.
Once uploaded, a SCUFL file cannot be changed on myExperiment, so we
guarantee immutability to some extent (except when they are deleted).
I believe this is applicable in your case?
Thanks,
Jits
Paul Allen wrote:
Hello all,
I'm wondering if there have been any thoughts about the versioning of
workflows that reside in a repository (e.g. myExperiment). The idea
would be to make sure that, if a workflow from a repository is
referenced externally, it will always work in a manner similar (and
produce similar output) as when it was referenced. I think that this
is important if people are sharing workflows, yet those workflows
continue to be improved or updated.
I'm not sure if versioning workflows implies that actors/components
are also versioned.
Has anybody thought about this?
Thanks,
-Paul
_______________________________________________
Myexperiment-discuss mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/myexperiment-discuss