On 16 May 2016 at 13:43, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
> On 5/16/2016 11:42, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On 15 May 2016 at 03:02, Stefan <luke1410_at_gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2016 01:13, Stefan wrote:
>>>> [[[
>>>> Add a troubleshooting section to 1.9 to help users tracing down problems
>>>> related to proxies when locking/unlocking multiple files.
>>>>
>>>> * docs/release-notes/1.9.html
>>>> (troubleshooting): Add new section including http-pipelining issue
>>>> description.
>>>> ]]]
>>>
>>> Small correction to patchnotes:
>>>
>>> [[[
>>> Add a troubleshooting section to 1.9 to help users tracing down problems
>>> related to proxies when locking/unlocking multiple files.
>>>
>>> * docs/release-notes/1.9.html
>>> (troubleshooting): Add new section including http-pipelining issue
>>> description.
>>> (news): Add link to new troubleshooting section.
>>> ]]]
>>>
>> I think it's better to use term "HTTP pipelining" instead of
>> "http-pipelining" on the website. Another wording suggestion: replace
>> ".. protocols/applications involved in processing http-pipelining."
>> with something like ".. protocols/applications involved in processing
>> pipelined HTTP requests."
>
> Thanks for the review Ivan, attached patch incorporates your changes and
> also changes the section name (http-pipeline-issue ->
> http-pipelining-issue).
>
Thanks for fixing that, but title still uses term 'http-pipelining":
+<h3>Lock/Unlock errors related to http-pipelining
+ <a class="sectionlink" href="#http-pipelining-issue"
+ title="Link to this section">¶</a>
+</h3>
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2016-05-16 13:15:07 CEST