On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 11:42:32AM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Christopher, > > On 4/17/21 9:16 AM, Christopher Faulet wrote: > > I'm a bit annoyed by the renaming of existing normalizers. Except if you > > plan to do your modification before the release, it is a bad idea to > > change the name of a configuration parameter once introduced in a > > stable release. The feature itself may be experimental because some bugs > > are expected but from the configuration point of view, it should be > > stable. > > To be honest I did not expect that the second round of patches was already > good enough to merge, so I wanted to send a quick notice regarding my > further plans before it was too late and you already applied the patches. > > I definitely planned to do the finalization before the release, but I > understand that we are *very* late in the cycle, so it's understandable that > you are a bit annoyed by my announcement.
Last weeks in cycle always attract lots of no-so-important but very useful features, that always make us hesitate betwen merging or leaving them. And that's normal since usually they do not risk to cause regressions. > With the renaming already made I consider the configuration syntax to be > stable enough for a 2.4. I'll leave the final decision regarding that up to > you, though. Especially since 2.4 is going to be an LTS. What we can possibly do, if you're not completely sure about the naming (it's often a very difficult aspect to deal with), is to merge the series, ask users in the next release announcement to have a look and possibly suggest updates before the release. We can then mark the new actions as experimental in the doc, and remove the experimental status after a while. Or if the features look solid enough and you're feeling ready to deal with occasionally possible bug reports, we can merge them and even not pass via an experimental status. I'm open to various options. Anyway I do think that URI normalization is a useful feature to have. I think that some of the actions will probably end up being replicated as converters, so maybe in the end the sequence below: http-request normalize-uri path-merge-slashes http-request normalize-uri path-strip-dotdot could end up like this: http-request set-path %[path,path-merge-slashes,path-strip-dotdot] The pre-release period is the right one to evaluate such options, so I'm not worried about any outcome. Willy
