W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Why does MERGE automatically checkin resources related to act ivities?

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:26:42 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10465330D@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Sounds like we've got closure on this issue.  I'll submit this change,
along with fixes for the reported typos in draft-19, as draft-20.

Here's the full list of changes since draft-18:

---- v20 ---

- 11.2: Add "identifies the resources that a client must modify to complete
the merge" to the description of what the merge output contains.

- 12: reword sentence describing a configuration to be "all ... except"
instead of "all ... not"

- 12.3.1: change has to "MUST have".

- 13: add "V3" name to diagram

- 13.9: add "-set" to "activity-checkout"

- 13.12: allow client to control activity checkin behavior with a
DAV:activity-checkin parameter to MERGE.

------------ v19 ---------------------
- 1.2: "is be" -> "is"

- 1.7: "a resources" -> "a resource"

- 2.1: "and versioning-unaware client" -> "and versioning-unaware clients"

- 10.2: definition of cvr: "captures the dead properties of a
version-controlled collection, as well as the names of its
version-controlled bindings"

- 11.2 :add "or is the same as" in the "ancestor version" and "descendant
version" postconditions.

- 11.2: add period to "descendent version" precondition.

- 11.2: for update-merge-set postcondition, move "must be added" to first

- 11.3: should be "ignore-preview", not "ignored-preview"

- 14.10: "each non-version-controlled members" -> "each
non-version-controlled member"

Thanks for the rapid turnaround, everyone!


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:30 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why does MERGE automatically checkin resources related to
act ivities?

On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:47:08AM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> I do believe Roy made a good case for making this behavior
> be under client control, so I'd like to modify the marshalling
> of the MERGE request so that there is a DAV:auto-activity-checkin
> flag to MERGE that indicates whether or not the client wants this
> auto-activity-checkin behavior.  Does anyone object to this change?

Not a problem here.

> (I'd like to make the default to not do the checkin, since this
> is more consistent with the non-activity semantics of MERGE, which
> does not merge checked-out resources.

Not a problem.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 08:27:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC