I used to maintain a small patch set of issues that affected me and were fixed on the GNOME bugzilla but ignored by main devs. This is was a motivating factor in my switch to to Unity years ago. Sad to hear this situation hasn't improved.

I don't want to agree with you, but I tried to make a few polishing contributions to GNOME games and they got ignored after the first developer response (they told me what to fix, I fixed it). They've been stagnant for over 3 years now.

Submitting changes and having them accepted by GNOME is an exercise in futility if you aren't a GNOME dev.

In order to prevent this PR from becoming too large to review, I left the spread test, the part of this feature which makes it work with user daemons (left a TODO) and the addition of ~/Snap, for follow-up PRs.

Sending body/payload in a GET request may cause some existing implementations to reject the request — while not prohibited by the specification, the semantics are undefined. It is better to just avoid sending payloads in GET requests.

Requests using GET should only be used to request data (they shouldn't include data).

So long as the filters are only using GET requests to pull down links, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with them. It’s a basic (though oft-ignored) tenet of web development that GET requests should be idempotent; that is, they shouldn’t somehow change anything important on the server. That’s what POST is for. A lot of people ignore this for convenience’s sake, but this is just one way that you can get bitten. Anyone remember the Google Web Accelerator that came out a while ago, then promptly disappeared? It’d pre-fetch links on a page to speed up things if you clicked them later on. And if one of those links happened to delete something from a blog, or log you out… well, then you begin to see why GET shouldn’t change things. So yes, the perfect solution to this is a 2-step unsubscribe link: the first step takes to you a page with a form on it, and that form then POSTs something back that finalizes the unsubscribe request.

Idempotent just means that following a link twice has exactly the same effect on persistent state as clicking it once. It does not mean that following the link must not change state, just that after following it once, following it again must not change state further. There are good reasons to avoid GET requests for changing state, but that’s not what idempotent means.

Arguably any link that performs such an action via GET is fundamentally broken. A proper unsubscribe should direct to a page with a form that requires a POST submission. (Of course, in the real world, few things are proper.)

This is not advice. A GET is defined in this way in the HTTP protocol. It is supposed to be idempotent and safe.

I don't like that I can't really use head? to know it's a HEAD request, but I (think I) understand the reasoning

Open a separate PR to add Rails 6 to the CI matrix

This is failing CI because CI is testing against Rails < 6. I think the appropriate next steps are: Open a separate PR to add Rails 6 to the CI matrix Update this PR to only run CSP-related test code for Rails >= 6.0.0 Can you help with either or both of those?

Source maps eliminate the need to serve these separate files. Instead, a special source map file can be read by the browser to help it understand how to unpack your assets. It "maps" the current, modified asset to its "source" so you can view the source when debugging. This way you can serve assets in development in the exact same way as in production.

When Sprockets was introduced, one of the opinions that it held strongly, is that assets such as CSS and JS should be bundled together and served in one file.

The alternative was to have multiple scripts or stylesheet links on one page, which would trigger multiple HTTP requests. Multiple requests mean multiple connection handshakes for each link “hey, I want some data”, “okay, I have the data”, “alright I heard that you have the data, give it to me” (SYN, ACK, SYNACK). Even once the connection is created there is a feature of TCP called TCP slow start that will throttle the speed of the data being sent at the beginning of a request to a slower speed than the end of the request. All of this means transferring one large request is faster than transferring the same data split up into several smaller requests.

Here is a quick recap table of every technology we discussed in this blog post.

i2c, Inc.                  ATTN: Rob Seiler                  100 Redwood Shores Parkway                  Suite 100                  Redwood City, CA 94065

courtorders@i2cinc.com

On the linked thread I've put details, a suggestion for implementation and an offer of help if someone wants to submit a PR. Let's see what happens!

It works very well, especially since the current Gimp roadmap relegates CMYK support to a version Gimp 3.2 However to be fairquoteShould a new developer join the team to specifically work on CMYK-related features, we will do our best to help him/her to complete this project and get it to our users as soon as possible.unquoteNot holding my breath.

So before using GET with Body parameter, you must first ensure the servers are supporting it. It is possible that some servers might ignore the body of GET request or behavior like caching GET/HEAD requests might cause issues.

A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request.

I tried implement the retries with as little as possible change, but it's quite hard to do that and keep the code clean with the current system. If you prefer less changes, I'm happy to go back to just the first two commits:

I'm happy to accept PRs :)

Bonus SSR bugs I bumped into and fixed while addressing this:

I'm not going to work on this myself, but if somebody comes up with a patch, I'd be happy to review and merge.

This PR contains some minor changes, each in a separate commit so I can easily remove them if they are not wanted.

It's really useful if your PR relates to an outstanding issue, so please reference it in your PR, or create an explanatory one for discussion. In many cases, features are absent for a reason.

The feature is highly likely to be implemented, the API and implementation are the only real topics of discussion right now.

We've stated what's required multiple times now: #14540 (comment) #14540 (comment), and the follow up arguments weren't convincing. Follow Rafael's advice in new smaller PRs to advance this or it'll simply stay closed

Will you accept merge requests on the gitlab-ce/gitlab-foss project after it has been renamed? No. Merge requests submitted to this project will be closed automatically.

Edit this page Request docs changes

so that we would accept proposed changes from the community around this feature.

If people care about a missing feature, then ideally the issue should be marked as ~"Accepting merge requests"

The merge request must not contain more than 10 commit messages. This rule is maybe the most controversial.

This form uses ReCaptcha. Before sending the form, please accept cookies before sending the form

Test on more recent rubies

This API uses request body in GET requests. For a long time this was prohibited in RFC2616 HTTP specification, but since RFCs 7230-7237, it is only discouraged, since older implementations could reject such requests. However, given that major APIs such as ElasticSearch's already implement GET with request bodies, there is precedence to such implementation.

When submitting new methods for consideration, it is best if each method (or tightly related set of methods) is in it's own pull request. If you have only one method to submit then a simple commit will do the trick. If you have more than one it best to use separate branches. Let me emphasizes this point because it makes it much more likely that your pull request will be merged. If you submit a bunch of methods in a single pull request, it is very likely that it will not be merged even if methods you submitted are accepted!

HTTPretty

this is not intended to become a big, public thing. You're welcome to use anything and steal any code. Please do not count on us adressing feature requests or issues though.

Forward refs to input component

Compared with the 1.0 release, there were relatively few backwards incompatible changes, but there are still a few issues to be aware of with this major release.