On 18 Nov 2010, at 19:23, Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> You get the regular 412 response as if you would provide no or an out of date >> _rev. > > 412? Don't you mean 409\? There was a discussion about that and IIRC > it was settled in favor of 409, which matches the behavior I'm seeing > in 1.0.1.
My HTTP-fu is weak today :( Cheers Jan --
