On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 08:17:20AM +0100, ???? ??????? wrote: > ??, 20 ???. 2026 ?. ? 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.
I don't care about including the tag or not, I'm really speaking about the finality of it. > > > --- 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 OK but not all agents are 100% aware of what's permitted and what's not, and taking conservative approaches on error paths is super important. It can literally take months to years before discovering that some tools mistakenly cache a 503 or a 403, just because these are pretty rare, and because users are rarely able to contact a site which appears to be down to report an issue. > > 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 OK but at least here it didn't act well, at least not as well as you normally do. Willy
