per previous discussion,
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:
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.