- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:26:42 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Sounds like we've got closure on this issue. I'll submit this change, along with fixes for the reported typos in draft-19, as draft-20. Here's the full list of changes since draft-18: ---- v20 --- - 11.2: Add "identifies the resources that a client must modify to complete the merge" to the description of what the merge output contains. - 12: reword sentence describing a configuration to be "all ... except" instead of "all ... not" - 12.3.1: change has to "MUST have". - 13: add "V3" name to diagram - 13.9: add "-set" to "activity-checkout" - 13.12: allow client to control activity checkin behavior with a DAV:activity-checkin parameter to MERGE. ------------ v19 --------------------- - 1.2: "is be" -> "is" - 1.7: "a resources" -> "a resource" - 2.1: "and versioning-unaware client" -> "and versioning-unaware clients" - 10.2: definition of cvr: "captures the dead properties of a version-controlled collection, as well as the names of its version-controlled bindings" - 11.2 :add "or is the same as" in the "ancestor version" and "descendant version" postconditions. - 11.2: add period to "descendent version" precondition. - 11.2: for update-merge-set postcondition, move "must be added" to first sentence. - 11.3: should be "ignore-preview", not "ignored-preview" - 14.10: "each non-version-controlled members" -> "each non-version-controlled member" Thanks for the rapid turnaround, everyone! Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:30 AM To: Clemm, Geoff Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: Re: Why does MERGE automatically checkin resources related to act ivities? On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:47:08AM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote: >... > I do believe Roy made a good case for making this behavior > be under client control, so I'd like to modify the marshalling > of the MERGE request so that there is a DAV:auto-activity-checkin > flag to MERGE that indicates whether or not the client wants this > auto-activity-checkin behavior. Does anyone object to this change? Not a problem here. > (I'd like to make the default to not do the checkin, since this > is more consistent with the non-activity semantics of MERGE, which > does not merge checked-out resources. Not a problem.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 08:27:15 UTC