----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62635/#review190264 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp Lines 888-896 (original), 888-902 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/62635/#comment267565> We sure are inconsistent about comment block usage of `/**/` vs `//` in this file :| 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp Lines 892-896 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/62635/#comment267566> s/arleady/already/ s/@param safe/@param unsafe/ Also, consider calling the new parameter something more explicit, like `additional_chars`. - Joseph Wu On Oct. 16, 2017, 4:25 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/62635/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 16, 2017, 4:25 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Greg Mann, Jie Yu, and Joseph Wu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The new `unsafe` parameter specifies the extra characters to be > percent-encoded, in addition to the ones specified in RFC 3986. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp > ba1b086a1dba140df491387077723d5c359acbcc > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp a4d71fb6c345d3c7a7611004830f6c2c0fbf6046 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62635/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make > > > Thanks, > > Chun-Hung Hsiao > >
