On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 13 Nov 2019, at 9:36, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
It might be worth splitting out and fixing in a separate pull-request,
sure!
Hmm. I’m not sure what you mean here. If you mean a PR which covers RFC1035
compliance but not prefix support, I would find myself doing almost the same
work twice.
The prospect doesn’t fill me with enthusiasm.
Why twice? If it is a generic fix to DoH in curl, that could be lifted out
from your other work and merged indepdendently. Once. Then your ESNI work
doesn't have to include that code as you'd rebase your patch ontop of the
already rfc1035-fixed curl version.
Splitting up a larger work into smaller pieces is a great way to make life
easier to do those who review the code and allows us to piecemeal the merge
process.
But I'm certainly not forcing you to do it. This seems like a reasonably small
and easy fix that "anyone" can do it.
--
/ daniel.haxx.se | Get the best commercial curl support there is - from me
| Private help, bug fixes, support, ports, new features
| https://www.wolfssl.com/contact/-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: https://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: https://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
