The chunked transfer coding  is actually coming from RFC2616 , not RFC2617.  http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/f5077ad52f8b90183e73038869f6140f0afbf427/netwerk/protocol/http/nsHttpChunkedDecoder.cpp#30  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.6.1
Submitted changeset for review.
Created attachment 8842509 [details] [diff] [review] Bug 1337303 - Corrected RFC number cited in comments Reviewed by mcmanus; I had attached this to the wrong bug before.
Comment on attachment 8842509 [details] [diff] [review] Bug 1337303 - Corrected RFC number cited in comments Review of attachment 8842509 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- somehow you have created a file called commit-message-f58fb you don't want a new file in the repo like that.
Attachment #8842509 - Flags: review+ → review-
Comment on attachment 8842574 [details] Bug 1337303 - Corrected RFC number cited in comments https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/116358/#review118004 duplicate review request
Attachment #8842574 - Flags: review?(mcmanus)
Created attachment 8842622 [details] [diff] [review] Started over on this commit to fix various issues with the patch
Latest attachment should be good to go. This is a comment-only change, so this patch should not need a try run to prove it's ok. Thanks for your patience while I learned the workflow for contributing.
Pushed by firstname.lastname@example.org: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/74b41dce2486 Corrected RFC number cited in comments. r=mcmanus
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 2 years ago
status-firefox54: affected → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla54
nick, thanks for the patch and this all worked out ok so we don't need to take any action. But in comment 4 I revoked your r+ and changed it to a r-.. that meant you didn't have a r+ to self-assign and then mark checkin-needed when you fixed the patch. (you fixed it correctly, so I would have then given you the r+.. but I changed it to r- because I wanted to confirm it as you're a new contributor.. I should have made that more clear to you when I did it - its certainly not common.) I'm sure it was just done out of confusion (afterall I shouldn't have r+'d the patch at all if I was unhappy - I just realized afterwards what I was seeing in there with the extra file). no worries - just clarifying the workflow because the tools (intentionally) let people override this stuff.
Thanks Patrick, and sorry about that. It is definitely out of confusion :) I am reaching out to people on IRC to figure out what I'm doing wrong.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.