Re: [PATCH 1/1] ui-shared: Use CRLF in HTTP headers as per RFC 7230

2016-05-12 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld 
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Juuso Lapinlampi  wrote:
> CRLF is explicitly defined as the line break in the HTTP protocol
> specifications: RFC 2616 (obsolete) and RFC 7230.

But this is CGI, not HTTP.
___
CGit mailing list
CGit@lists.zx2c4.com
http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit

Re: [PATCH 1/1] ui-shared: Use CRLF in HTTP headers as per RFC 7230

2016-05-12 Thread John Keeping 
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:15:27PM +, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> > "generally recognized" is a bit nebulous, which is why a blanket policy
> > is safer as well as much simpler to police.
> 
> Guess we are going to wait for this bit to rot here over a silly blanket
> policy then, as I have established my authorship already with Git
> features and argued about threshold of originality. Same goes for the
> other patches I submitted under the project's free software license
> (GPLv2).

"theshold of originality" is crap for two reasons:

1. if we use it as a criterion for requiring a sign-off then someone has
   to decide for each and every patch whether a sign-off is required,
   which increases the workload for maintainers with no benefit
2. IANAL but if you give a lawyer the choice between asserting that
   something is too small to matter for copyright or getting a sign-off
   certifying the DCO, I'll bet good money on them choosing the latter.

> I know to be very reasonable with code review processes but this
> Signed-off-by: policy is just too much.

If we were talking about a CLA I'd agree, but adding one line to the
commit message to certify that you have the rights to submit the patch
under the project's license doesn't seem that onerous to me (especially
when git-commit or git-format-patch will add it for you with "-s").
___
CGit mailing list
CGit@lists.zx2c4.com
http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit

Re: [PATCH 1/1] ui-shared: Use CRLF in HTTP headers as per RFC 7230

2016-05-11 Thread Juuso Lapinlampi 
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> "generally recognized" is a bit nebulous, which is why a blanket policy
> is safer as well as much simpler to police.

Guess we are going to wait for this bit to rot here over a silly blanket
policy then, as I have established my authorship already with Git
features and argued about threshold of originality. Same goes for the
other patches I submitted under the project's free software license
(GPLv2).

I know to be very reasonable with code review processes but this
Signed-off-by: policy is just too much.

By the way, get a CONTRIBUTING file.
___
CGit mailing list
CGit@lists.zx2c4.com
http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit