Hi Willy,
On Wednesday, January 20 2021 at 19:54:09 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:47:43AM +0100, William Lallemand wrote:
> > Hello Bertrand,
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:58:46PM +0000, Bertrand Jacquin wrote:
> > > This is a pretty lame commit in a attempt to use a common wording of
> > > HAProxy used 1319 times compared to HAproxy used 10 times
> > > index e36e020c5ce7..92449a04f6e2 100644
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > --- a/src/haproxy.c
> > > +++ b/src/haproxy.c
> > > @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ static void display_version()
> > > {
> > > struct utsname utsname;
> > >
> > > - printf("HA-Proxy version %s %s - https://haproxy.org/\n";
> > > + printf("HAProxy version %s %s - https://haproxy.org/\n";
> > > PRODUCT_STATUS "\n", haproxy_version, haproxy_date);
> > >
> > > if (strlen(PRODUCT_URL_BUGS) > 0) {
> > >
> >
> > I wanted to do this a long time ago, and at this time we decided to keep
> > it as it was to not break existing scripts. I think we'll let Willy
> > decide if that's a good idea now :-)
>
> I'm totally fine with changing this ugly one that I usually spot right
> after the release :-)
>
> However, this one and the other only real user-visible one affecting the
> mailers subject should be changed as a separate patch because we won't
> backport them. Ideally the doc and code comments should be in separate
> patches so that the doc ones can be backported and we keep the cleanups
> apart. But at quick glance there aren't that many comments so I think
> they'll easily be backported without causing trouble. Just something to
> keep in mind for next time.
This all definitely make sense, I'll provide the split patchset over the
week-end as I want to adjust vtest as well as William righfully pointed
out vtest itself is also messing around with naming and making my eyes
bleed everytime I see this. Again, this is all silly and pretty much
point less, not a reason to not split and test all this properly.
Cheers,
Bertrand
--
Bertrand
