W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 16:32:14 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070909153214.GB22349@mail.shareable.org>

Adrien de Croy wrote:
> >In my experience, that last-in-wins-with-history results in lost work,
> >because it succeeds for all users but most of them aren't notified
> >that their work is dumped _only_ in the history file (assuming you
> >have one).  They send in their work, get a successful response, assume
> >they don't need to do anything more, and move on to something else.
> >They think their work is finished with, but it's effectively lost
> >because nobody is ensuring it reaches the place that matters.  It's
> >recoverable, but that is not enough.
> >
> >  
> Fair enough.  Just still trying to think of what a poor UA / user would 
> do once they've been told their patch won't be accepted because the 
> thing they are patching has been changed out from underneath.

Presumably the alternative is that their patch is accepted and
_another_ poor user's patch is "not accepted" by being reverted.

Surely it's better to notify any user immediately that their patch
isn't accepted, than to revert another user's patch silently.  In both
cases, someone's patch isn't accepted, but in the latter case, it's
just dropped silently.

-- Jamie
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2007 15:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT