[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#30154: [PATCH] web: Add http-patch.
From: |
Arun Isaac |
Subject: |
bug#30154: [PATCH] web: Add http-patch. |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:04:38 +0530 |
>> Yes, exporting 'request' alone would serve my purpose, although
>> 'define-http-verb' would make my script much shorter. But, I'll leave it
>> to your judgement. Should I send a new patch exporting 'request' alone?
>
> Could you do that? The ‘request’ procedure can simply be made public
> and otherwise left unchanged, but we’d need a docstring and an entry in
> the manual. Can you take a look?
Yes, I'll send you a patch within a few days.
> I’ll happily apply the patch afterwards, and I promise you won’t have to
> wait as much as you did so far! :-)
I am generally quite patient with patch review, but yes, this one did
take too long. :-)