Op 02-10-2023 om 18:32 schreef Vivien Kraus:
Hi! Are there other things to fix?
You forgot to include the warning of potential security issues in the documentation -- I don't mean that Guile should fix the issues (it can't), but rather that its documentation should inform the user that there exists a potential issue to fix.
+(define (merge-paths base-has-authority? base dependent) + "Return @samp{@var{base}/@var{dependent}}, with the subtelties of absolute
subtle spelling error: subtleties -> subtletiesAlso, if the result of changing the variable name is deviating from the RFC, then I'm not sure whether it is better. (I was thinking of relative -> maybe-relative myself, which sticks close to the RFC.) Rather bikesheddy, though.
diff --git a/test-suite/tests/web-uri.test b/test-suite/tests/web- uri.test index 95fd82f16..c453bf60f 100644 --- a/test-suite/tests/web-uri.test +++ b/test-suite/tests/web-uri.test @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ (define-module (test-web-uri) #:use-module (web uri) #:use-module (ice-9 regex) + #:use-module (ice-9 string-fun) #:use-module (test-suite lib))
Copyright lines need update 2020->2023, or a new update line if there is no assignment to FSF. (If you want to assign to FSF, the process to do this is started by the maintainer(s) -- I'm not a Guile maintainer.)
Also: new entry in AUTHORS (TODO: HACKING implies this is only if you assigned copyright to FSF, and only for new files, but, err, nope, copyright != author and likewise initial author != all authors) (*).
Also, according to HACKING, you should be self-congratulatory, i.e., add yourself to THANKS.
Other than that, I have no remarks. Best regards, Maxime Devos(*) It says (paraphrases) ‘see maintain.texi for what should go in there’, but then the name of the file is extremely misleading, because authors != authors that a list is needed of according to maintain.texi.
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
