Hello all,
per previous discussion,
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049495.html
I'd like to push a trivial little patch to sgmllib (#1087808) on you gents, in exchange for my reviews & effort etc. on 10 other patches.
Without further ado:
No-brainers:
1055159 -- a docstring+docs update to CGIHTTPServer describing already- existing behavior. Recommend apply.
1037974 -- fix HTTP digest auth for broken servers, e.g. LiveJournal. Trivial code fix, should break nothing. Recommend apply + backport.
1028908 -- JJ Lee's updates to urllib2. Passes regr tests, by an original author of much of the code (I think). Recommend apply.
901480 -- patch to urllib2.parse_http_list (bug 735248). Works. Updated patch. Recommend apply + backport.
827559 -- SimpleHTTPServer redirects to 'dir/' when asked for 'dir'. This behavior mimics common behavior online and fixes a problem with relative URLs when clicking on files within 'dir'. Recommend apply.
810023 -- fixes off-by-one bug in urllib reporthook. regr tests & all. Good stuff. Recommend apply + backport.
893642 -- adds allow_none option to SimpleXMLRPCServer & associated classes. Doesn't change default behavior. Recommend apply.
755670 -- modify HTMLParser to accept clearly broken HTML. Recommend reject.
Slightly more complicated:
1067760 -- float-->long conversion on fileobj.seek calls, rather than float-->int. Permits larger floats (2.0**62) to match large int (2**62) arguments. rhettinger marked as "won't fix" in the original bug report; this seems like a clean solution, tho. Recommend apply.
755660 -- should HTMLParser fail on all bad input, or do best effort? I'd recommend more sweeping changes where must-fail situations are distinguished from fails-by-default situations. Alternatively take a stand and say "nein!" once and for all. (See my comment for more information.)
--
For no particularly good reason, all of these were tested against the current CVS HEAD rather than 2.4. All of them should be trivial to backport, although I think only a few are real problems worthy of the effort.
--
I'm kind of curious to see how this goes, I must admit ;). Please CC me on replies so I can listen in...
One comment to Martin: it clearly isn't worth the effort of reviewing 10 patches to push a patch the size of my sgmllib patch. On the other hand, it's nice to have a guarantee & it's an educational experience, that's for sure.
A 5:1 ratio might be more reasonable, since that in practice will mean 1 serious patch, 2 or 3 updates, and 1 drop-dead easy patch.
cheers, --titus