- From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:27:02 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 17:27:16 UTC
>... > You could also consider removing the first item. A core versioning server > that supports the checkout option should still support locking semantics. Says who? That is a silly statement. Subversion isn't going to support locking semantics at all. You'll get a 405 if you send a LOCK or UNLOCK. Versioning servers don't need locking semantics -- they allow multiple people to work on resources simultaneously. Think, "parallel development". That is the antithesis of locks. <jra> Maybe I wasn't clear enough. A core versioning server that *supports locking AND* the checkout option should continue to support its locking semantics. I didn't mean to imply that a server that didn't support locking but did support the checkout option needed to support locking. Note that locking is still optional even though its referenced in core since its optional in 2518. So I still think the first item could be removed. </jra>
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 17:27:16 UTC