[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Approve group? (was: svn commit: r1502108 ...)

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:14:41 -0400

On Jul 11, 2013 5:55 AM, "Stefan Sperling" <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:52:07AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I'd like to see us get this approved and applied to 1.8.x. My recent
> > changes "should" remove danielsh's issue with the patch group.
> >
> > Regarding Ben's, I'd suggest: any additional change would build upon
> > this group. Thus, since the darned group is getting pretty large, I
> > think it would make sense to get it folded in.
> >
> > It provides *a* solution to the proxy/chunked issue. Is more work
> > needed? Maybe. There isn't clear consensus yet. But again: this group
> > is a necessary precondition to any further work anyways.
>
> I'd like a tri-state setting for the http-detect-chunking option (yes,
> no, auto) that defaults to "auto". That was the best suggested approach,
> in my opinion. I don't think we should compromise interoperability for
> performance concerns over a single HTTP request. Especially in a patch
> release.
>
> If you're saying that we're going to ship 1.8.1 with a two-state option,
> and ship a tri-state option in a later 1.8 release, I might be happy with
> that. But I don't really understand why we're not going for tri-state
> right now.

The tri-state suggestion is an increment over this patch, which is getting
a bit unwieldy. I'm just asking to get this cleared, then we can decide
if/when to apply that increment.

I don't think we should do two-state then tri-state in 1.8.1 / 1.8.2. We
should skip tri-state altogether in 1.8.x (my +1), or it should go into
1.8.1 on top of this.

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2013-07-11 14:15:20 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.