Re: Issue: comment in UNCHECKOUT

Chris Kaler (ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Thu, 20 May 1999 10:16:09 -0700 

Message-ID: <FD7A762E588AD211A7BC00805FFEA54B01C297E8@HYDRANT>
From: "Chris Kaler (Exchange)" <ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>,
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:16:09 -0700
Subject: RE: Issue: comment in UNCHECKOUT

There are version control systems that track these sorts of things.  It
seems reasonable for the protocol to support the "action oriented" comments
and allow servers to ignore this information.  We could provide a way to
discover it.

The alternative is that these stores will have to create custom extensions
to meets these needs and that seems bad.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 1:33 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
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.