Re: [PATCH] troubleshooting http-pipelining for 1.9 release notes

On 5/16/2016 16:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 16.05.2016 15:07, Stefan wrote:
>> On 5/16/2016 14:29, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 16.05.2016 13:24, Stefan wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2016 13:14, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>>> 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">&para;</a>
>>>>> +</h3>
>>>> Good spot. Fixed with the attached patch.
>>> Can you please not use <br/> where it's not appropriate. You should
>>> actually have multiple paragraphs in the description, not one paragraph
>>> with hard line breaks.
>>>
>>> An HTML editor quirk, perhaps?
>> It's rather my layout style which I didn't correctly adjust to cope for
>> the layout used on the release notes page.
>> I believe that the revised patch should use the correct layout now.
>> The patch also corrects the missing encoding of the & in the URL in the
>> new trouble shooting section.
> Thanks, looks good as far as I'm concerned.
>
> -- Brane

Thanks for the review to the both of you. Committed in r1744791 now. (I
hope I got that right, in that your statement was an approval for
commit, Brane).

Regards,
Stefan