вт, 20 янв. 2026 г. в 08:10, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > Hi Ilya, > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 09:46:36PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: > > From: "copilot-swe-agent[bot]" < > [email protected]> > > > > Co-authored-by: chipitsine <[email protected]> > > I don't know if it's you or a bot doing it on you, but this is useless at > best, or possibly even dangerous: >
from the legal point of view it might be dangerous not to include. > > > --- a/examples/errorfiles/400.http > > +++ b/examples/errorfiles/400.http > > @@ -1,9 +1,8 @@ > > HTTP/1.0 400 Bad request > > -Cache-Control: no-cache > > Probably not a good idea to make error pages cacheable, that's the best > way to make a site appear unavailable even after full recovery. > I read RFC and those responses are not cacheble: 400, 401, 403, 407, 408, 413, 421, 422, 425, 429, 431, 500, 502, 503, 504 either with or without Cache-Control > > > Connection: close > > Content-Type: text/html > > > > -<html><body><h1>400 Bad request</h1> > > -Your browser sent an invalid request. > > -</body></html> > > +<html><body><h1>400 Bad request</h1> > > +Your browser sent an invalid request. > > +</body></html> > > You don't see them, but it has added CRs at the end of each line above > for no reason. > valid concern, agreed > > Also, like most often with such bots, there's zero explanation in the > commit message about the intent and the purpose of the change. I'd > rather see you post yourself patches that you authored with the help > of such stupid bots, rather than let these bots post patches for you > and discredit you. Just my two cents. > use of any tool like vs code or automatic testing instead of code review can discredit me, it is something that we live with > > Willy >
