Re: [Libevent-users] some trivial patches

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Mansour Moufid
<mansourmoufid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello, Mansour, and thank you for the patches.

0001 and 0002 look like non-starters.  They change a published
interface.  Code that followed the documented interface of
evhttp_*_set_max_*_size that  would have worked before will no longer
work with these changes applied.  We seriously try not to break
correct programs.

0003 looks like a good idea, and as it's a bugfix, it's mergeable in
patches-2.0.

0004 and the formatting part of 0005 look fine, but there's no actual
guarantee that a size_t can fit inside an unsigned long.  If we're
trying to fix that part of the code, we should fix it for real, and
format it properly.  (Do all the targets we care about support the %z
format, or do we need to get fancy?)

with respect to the rest of 0005, I don't see what's so bad about
doing an (x > 0) check on an unsigned x.  Any well-behaved compiler
should generate good code here, right?

0006 looks like it's the same as 8fa030c0, which is already merged
into the patches-2.0 and master branches.

>
> Compiles and passes `regress', but not tested otherwise.
>
> PS: Is it best to post to the list or the tracker?

People send some patches to the list, some to the tracker, and some to
github.  I used to say "Send everything to the tracker!" but right now
I'm trying to be more flexible and work with everything at once to see
how it goes, and whether a mixed methodology serves us better.

That said, my inbox is not a persistent medium: anything that
shouldn't get lost really ought to be on the tracker.

peace,
-- 
Nick
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe libevent-users    in the body.