Hi Hubert, you patches look very good now.
I tested them and had a quick look on the changes. Just could find these very minor points: In file included from http.c:32:0: wget.h:335:32: warning: comma at end of enumerator list [-Wpedantic] IF_MODIF_SINCE = 0x0080, /* use if-modified-since header */ Is there any reason to abbreviate MODIFIED to MODIF ? If not, IF_MODIFIED_SINCE is slightly more readable, at least to me. Same goes to the opt member variable. Regards, Tim Am Montag, 18. Mai 2015, 13:38:33 schrieb Hubert Tarasiuk: > Sorry, I found and fixed another spelling error. > > W dniu 18.05.2015 o 13:11, Hubert Tarasiuk pisze: > > I have reworked my patches. Specifically: > > 1) --if-modified-since option is enabled by default and has only effect > > in timestamping mode. And yes, --no-if-modified-since is added > > automatically. > > 2) I added all legal date formats to my test. > > 3) I added another case to my test (local file is strictly newer than > > remote file). > > 3) If time_to_rfc1123 fails, there is simple fall back behavior. > > 4) I added work around behavior for servers ignoring If-Modified-Since > > (like for example our Perl test server). > > > > Patches are attached here as well as on Github for easy viewing. > > https://github.com/jy987321/Wget/commits/master-hubert > > > > Thank you, > > Hubert > > > > W dniu 14.05.2015 o 22:35, Hubert Tarasiuk pisze: > >> W dniu 14.05.2015 o 21:12, Tim Rühsen pisze: > >>> 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 ? > >> > >> Sounds good. > >> > >>> I personally would set it to true by default, since it is a very > >>> common/basic HTTP 1.1 header. > >> > >> Ok, I will name the option "--no-if-modified-since" and will enable that > >> by default. > >> > >>> Regards, Tim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
