Re: Issue: comment in UNCHECKOUT
Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Wed, 19 May 1999 04:33:12 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 04:33:12 -0400
Message-Id: <9905190833.AA04399@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990517160638.00a1e170@192.168.254.128>
Subject: Re: Issue: comment in UNCHECKOUT
I believe this draft of the spec inappropriately merges the concept
of a "resource creation comment" (something I would support)
with that of an "event comment" (something I would not support).
A CHECKIN creates a new resource (a new revision), which provides an
appropriate place to put a resource creation comment. An UNCHECKOUT
does not create a new resource, which then leaves you with the
problem you raise of where to store that "comment".
So I will propose that only resource creation requests can take
such a header (and I suggest it be called a Description, not a Comment).
Cheers
Geoff
X-Sender: jdavis@192.168.254.128
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:08:12 -0700
From: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@coursenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Resent-From: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org> archive/latest/180
X-Loop: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Sender: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 302
3.3 says that the client can provide a comment as part of an UNCHECKOUT.
The source control systems I have used don't store any history for an
uncheckout.
MUST the server store this comment? If it does not, MUST it return an error?
I'm new to this list, apologies if it's already been discussed.