Re: Locking non-existent paths. Time to discuss.

On Mar 21, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>> b) Even if it does, shouldn't the LOCK braces cause it to be a
>>> single checkin? (see
>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#PROPERTY_auto-
>>> version>, DAV:checkout-unlocked-checkin).
>>>
>> mod_dav_svn defines 'DAV:auto-version' to always be
>> 'DAV:checkout-checkin'.
>
> Is there a good reason why it doesn't implement
> "DAV:checkout-unlocked-checkin", which IMHO is much more useful?
>

Yes, because when we wrote autoversioning, we had no lock support at
the time. :-)

Honestly, though, I don't know how we would map the
'checkout-unlocked-checkin' behavior to Subversion's concepts... ?
What would this mean? Speficially, I don't understand how this
checkout-unlocked-checkin behavior would benefit us, considering that
MSOffice does

   LOCK nonexistentURL
   PUT 0-byte-file
   PUT real-file
   UNLOCK URL

?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 21 16:52:58 2005