Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Marc Hedlund: "Re: Better name for LWP"
• Previous message: ts: "Re: LWP and $content"
• Maybe in reply to: Marc Hedlund: "Four patches for LWP (and comments)"
• Next in thread: Martijn Koster: "Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)"

> Attached are four uuendcoded patches for LWP 0.2.  'patch.a' and 'patch.b'
> update LWP::StatusCode and LWP::MIMEheaders (respectively) to the August 3
> draft of HTTP/1.0, <draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-01.ps>, so they are strongly
> recommended.  'patch.c'adds the Response-Header fields to LWP::MIMEheaders,
> which may not be necessary within LWP but certainly makes that module more
> reusable (for me, at least!).  'patch.d' makes a change to
> LWP::MIMEheader's handling of unknown headers.  I think it is an
> improvement, but it is not critical to anything I'm working on and could be
> omitted without complaint.

I have adopted your patches.

> Please note that these patches do NOT increment the RCS revision numbers of
> the files they modify.  (Can someone please tell me what the standard
> practice for this would be?  Should contributed patches mess with version
> numbers in any way, or should that be left to the maintainer(s)?)

I don't care as version numbers anyway are overwritten when I check in the 
patched versions.  The good things about not messing with version numbers are 
that the patches get smaller and nobody get confused when I use the same 
version numbers later.

--Gisle

• Next message: Marc Hedlund: "Re: Better name for LWP"
• Previous message: ts: "Re: LWP and $content"
• Maybe in reply to: Marc Hedlund: "Four patches for LWP (and comments)"
• Next in thread: Martijn Koster: "Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)"