Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> Why only 200 and 206?
> This kind of question can often be answered through the revision > history. If you do 'svn annotate', you see that the line testing > ... > So it seems that it only tests for 200 and 206 because the experiments > never produced a need for anything else. Thanks for this detailed explanation, I learned a lot of how to "discover" the history of a piece of code (didn't know about "annotate"). Regarding the codes themselves: As the tests for 200 and 206 came from just needing them, I think there's no reason to not include the rest of 200. So, in the base that the RFC says that "2xx" codes means that the request was succeded, I think we shouldn't raise an Exception. Right now, it's a bug. Do you think it's safe to fix this or will break much code? Regards, -- . Facundo . Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/ PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
