On 5/16/2016 16:18, Branko Čibej wrote: > 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
Thanks for the review to the both of you. Committed in r1744791 now. (I hope I got that right, in that your statement was an approval for commit, Brane). Regards, Stefan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
