- From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:21:13 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF8ACFFBEA.A10AF8E7-ON85256AD7.005BBFA6@raleigh.ibm.com>
I'm in favor of the change. "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org 09/28/2001 02:10 PM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org cc: Subject: RE: Why does MERGE automatically checkin resources related to act ivities? From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com] I was reading section 13 with a group of other staff in MERANT and we came across section 13.12 which talks about automatically checking-in any checked-out resources referenced by an activity which is specified as part of the DAV:source set for the MERGE. Why does MERGE behave like this for activities and not for other resources (see the precondition DAV:cannot-merge-checked-out-resource in section 11.2. This auto-checkin behaviour seems to add more complexity to the implementation of MERGE and seems to be inconsistent. What was the use case for including this auto-checkin behaviour only for activities? This was added to allow for an "atomic" activity checkin/merge request (something needed by the Subversion system), which only supports DAV:no-checkout merge requests. With the new DAV:auto-update functionality, an alternative way of supporting this functionality would be to allow CHECKIN to be applied to an activity (and having it mean "checkin everything in that activity"). The DAV:auto-update functionality would do the MERGE. Greg: This just means you would replace your activity MERGE request with an activity CHECKIN request. This would also significantly improve interoperability, since more systems are likely to support activity CHECKIN than are likely to support the MERGE feature. I believe this would be a significant improvement in consistency, and only requires moving a postcondition from the MERGE method to the CHECKIN method. In addition, these two methods happen to be on the same page of the text draft, so I could make this change without the dreaded repagination. If there are no objections, I can make this change. If there are *any* objections, I will not make the change, since we are so late in the draft process. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 16:22:32 UTC