Re: Mini scenario

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm (geoffrey.clemm@rational.com)
Date: Thu, Jul 27 2000

Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Review of 06"

Previous message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Comments/Questions on draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-06"
In reply to: by way of : "Mini scenario"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007272051.QAA21721@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mini scenario

Everything looks fine to me!

The DAV:revision property of /r/1/foo would be just "/r/1/foo",
and the DAV:revision property of /r/2/foo would be just "/r/2/foo".

Cheers,
Geoff

   From: karasiuk@ca.ibm.com (by way of "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>)

   Can someone please look at this mini scenario, and tell me if the way that
   I used the properties conforms to the spec?

   Request:  VERSION /foo

   /foo
     target: /r/1/foo

   /r/1/foo
     revision: ??
     predecessor-set: null
     checkin-date: 00/07/24 09:00

   Request: CHECKOUT /foo

   /foo
     target: /r/2/foo

   /r/1/foo
     revision: ??
     predecessor-set: null
     checkin-date: 00/07/24 09:00

   /r/2/foo
     checked-out: /r/1/foo

   Request: CHECKIN /foo

   /foo
     target: /r/2/foo

   /r/1/foo
     revision: ??
     predecessor-set: null
     checkin-date: 00/07/24 09:00

   /r/2/foo
     revision: ??
     predecessor-set: /r/1/foo
     checkin-date: 00/07/24 09:10

Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Review of 06"
Previous message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Comments/Questions on draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-06"
In reply to: by way of : "Mini scenario"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]