D. Richard Hipp:
> Consider this sequence of operations:
>
> (1) User A does a "uv push"
> (2) User B does a "wget -N" against the uv.
> (3) User C does a "uv push" of different content.
>
> If all of (1), (2), and (3) happen during the same second and if
> unversioned content honors the If-Modified-Since header, then
> subsequent attempts by user B to do "wget -N" will continue to
> retrieve the obsolete version of the unversioned content that was
> uploaded by user A. User B will never see the more recent content
> uploaded by user C.
Yes, I agree.
It's the same situation as if multiple users were sharing files on a
web server space not under version control, with uploads by FTP ("uv
push") and downloads by HTTP ("wget -N").
This may work well for "inert" files, requiring small temporary local
adaptations not worth archiving, but bothersome if overwritten by an
accidental "wget". However, "mission-critical" and "fast-changing"
files, for which the risk of loosing content is unacceptable, had
better be put under version control.
As far as I remember, I've come across the recommendation to combine
ETags and Last-Modified headers, so the client could pick
If-None-Match or If-Modified-Since to validate its cached content.
And, it's already there, and works like a charm!
Thank you very much for all your efforts you're putting into this
project, this is really appreciated!
--Florian
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
