To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Message-ID: <OFA6ABCAE4.9A8EEC11-ON852568E4.00574DB0@ott.oti.com> From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:55:36 -0400 Subject: RE: UNCHECKOUT >DAV:private is the new checkin policy >(requested by you, Tim :-) that says >not to make the revision being checked >in the default revision for that >versioned resource. Great! I thought that had been voted down. >On a minor note, Tim and JimA, is there any >way for you to get your mail client to not >try to create an "ascii art" from/to section >in your responses? It's a Lotus Notes "thing" -- I don't know, but I'll ask. Tim "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Sent by: cc: ietf-dav-versioning-requ Subject: RE: UNCHECKOUT est@w3.org 19-05-00 09:44 AM DAV:private is the new checkin policy (requested by you, Tim :-) that says not to make the revision being checked in the default revision for that versioned resource. On a minor note, Tim and JimA, is there any way for you to get your mail client to not try to create an "ascii art" from/to section in your responses? Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com] DAV:private ?! "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org .com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: UNCHECKOUT ietf-dav-versioning-requ est@w3.org 19-05-00 08:56 AM Upon further reflection, I will place my vote on keeping UNCHECKOUT. I believe the semantics of CHECKIN should be: "remember the current state in the history of this resource" DAV:overwrite and DAV:keep-checked-out and DAV:private all satisfy this semantics, but "uncheckout" would not. Cheers, Geoff Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:56:15 +0200 From: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com> "Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > > From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com> > > Do we really need a method for UNCHECKOUT? > How about a check-in policy of <DAV:uncheckout/> > > I made that change in one of the earlier drafts, but as I recall, Jim > Amsden strenuously objected. > > I personally would be more than happy to make it be a > checkin policy, since it is no more strange than "keep-checked-out" > or "overwrite". It sounds logical to have a UNCHECKOUT to abort the actions of a checkout. OTOH we shouldn't inflate the number of our methods. I also would be content if there would be something like: CHECKOUT policy abort (without caring about XML syntax) But this shouldn't be a checkin-policy. ^^^^^^^ :-) Cheers, Edgar -- Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com, Postf. 1920,D-71509 Backnang,07191/133382 Marconi Communications, Access Networks Development, Software Engineering Privat kann jeder soviel C programmieren oder Videos ansehen wie er mag. Niklaus Wirth. Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler A.Einstein