On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Mansour Moufid <mansourmou...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, Mansour, and thank you for the patches. 0001 and 0002 look like non-starters. They change a published interface. Code that followed the documented interface of evhttp_*_set_max_*_size that would have worked before will no longer work with these changes applied. We seriously try not to break correct programs. 0003 looks like a good idea, and as it's a bugfix, it's mergeable in patches-2.0. 0004 and the formatting part of 0005 look fine, but there's no actual guarantee that a size_t can fit inside an unsigned long. If we're trying to fix that part of the code, we should fix it for real, and format it properly. (Do all the targets we care about support the %z format, or do we need to get fancy?) with respect to the rest of 0005, I don't see what's so bad about doing an (x > 0) check on an unsigned x. Any well-behaved compiler should generate good code here, right? 0006 looks like it's the same as 8fa030c0, which is already merged into the patches-2.0 and master branches. > > Compiles and passes `regress', but not tested otherwise. > > PS: Is it best to post to the list or the tracker? People send some patches to the list, some to the tracker, and some to github. I used to say "Send everything to the tracker!" but right now I'm trying to be more flexible and work with everything at once to see how it goes, and whether a mixed methodology serves us better. That said, my inbox is not a persistent medium: anything that shouldn't get lost really ought to be on the tracker. peace, -- Nick *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@freehaven.net with unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.
