New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
http: docs deprecation of 418 teapot status #14693
Conversation
@@ -660,6 +660,19 @@ Type: Runtime | |||
|
|||
`REPLServer.parseREPLKeyword()` was removed from userland visibility. | |||
|
|||
<a id="DEP00XX"></a> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this and the other instances be replaced?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Value is assigned when PR lands.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
|
||
Type: Documentation-only | ||
|
||
The HTTP `418 I'm a teapot` status code was defined in [RFC2324][] as an |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's important to note that 418 is not an HTTP status code, merely an HTCPCP one. I'd just remove the "HTTP" wording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are quite a lot of people objecting to this proposal in #14644. I don't really have a strong opinion on teapot protocols myself, and I see how removing non-standardized behavior can be a good idea in general. However, at the moment I'm -1 for this because it doesn't seem like the benefits of removing the status code are worth the costs of removing something that a lot of people seem to like.
As amusing as the responses have been, I think you're right. Let's not do this yet. There are other approaches we can take later if the 418 status is ever actually assigned. We can't hate fun that much, can we? |
Docs-only deprecation of the
I'm a teapot
status for 9.x, with the intent of removing the unregistered status code by 10.xFixes: #14644
/cc @mnot
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)