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 <luke1...@posteo.de> wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/2016 11:42, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>>> On 15 May 2016 at 03:02, Stefan <luke1...@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> >>> 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
