Fixing wording mistake in my example.

I made a mistake below, I meant to say that version #5 was checked in.
I corrected it below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hall
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:50 AM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: How Clients find out if they can perform a checkout
> 
> 
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Clemm, Geoff
> > > I'm not sure that a client that does not want to deal with merges 
> > > can stop there, when it hits a server that allows forking and 
> > > multiple checkouts.
> > 
> > The fact that some other version has a checkout has no effect
> > on whether or not your checkout will create a fork that might 
> > require a merge.  That is determined solely from whether or 
> > not the version you are checking out already has a descendent 
> > or checkout.
> 
> 
> I don't think that is true.
> Say that the latest checked in version is #5.
> 
> User A checks out version #2 using working resource, 
> intending to create
> a new version and then UPDATE the VCR with the newly created version.
> 
> User B looks at version #5.  Version #5 has no current descendents, so
> just looking at Version #5 User B is unaware that User A also has a
> checkout that could cause a merge / update problem.  To 
> prevent this in
> an independent way, the client would have to check all 
> previous versions
> to make sure they were not checked out.
> 
> I can easily think of clients that would not want to check out version
> #5 if ANY other version were checked out.
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 15:15:43 UTC