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

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
sentence.

- 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!

Cheers,
Geoff




-----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