On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Let's put it this way. To return 200 for a POST that actually failed >> is very strange -- the response entity had better, at the very least, >> not be cacheable if you'll do that.
Arg, I meant 201 code. > i would hope that no POSTs are cacheable :/. If the HTTP POST itself 201s should be cacheable though, since a new entity is returned. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
