Tim Rühsen <[email protected]> writes: > Am Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015, 15:43:54 schrieb Hubert Tarasiuk: >> W dniu 13.05.2015 o 13:28, Ander Juaristi pisze: >> > And second, I'm not really sure whether --condget is the best name for >> > the switch. >> > Requests that include any of If-Unmodified-Since, If-Match, >> > If-None-Match, or If-Range >> > header fields are also "conditional GETs" as well. >> > We might want to implement one of those in the future and we'd be forced >> > to choose a name which could easily be >> > inconsistent/confusing with --condget. Or maybe we won't. But we don't >> > know that now, so I think >> > it's better to choose a switch more specific to the fact that an >> > If-Modified-Since header will be sent >> > so as to avoid confusion. >> >> Do you have an idea for a better switch name that would not be too long? >> I have noticed that issue earlier, but could not think of a better name >> that would not be too long. :D >> >> Thank you for the suggestions, > > Hi Hubert, > > why not --if-modified-since as a boolean option ? > > I personally would set it to true by default, since it is a very common/basic > HTTP 1.1 header.
would not be better to not enable it by default? At least this is what we do with --timestamping and having --if-modified-since by default will break the use case of downloading successive files as .1, .2, .3.... Regards, Giuseppe
