Message248198
Yeah, I think that makes the most sense to me as well. I tried to make a minimum-impact patch, but this feels cleaner.
If we remove the Content-Length header, the `limit` kwarg might occur at an odd place in the part itself, but that feels unavoidable if someone submits an incorrect Content-Length for the request itself.
I'll re-work the patch and make sure the tests I added still add value. Thanks! |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2015-08-07 15:06:48 | Peter Landry | set | recipients:
+ Peter Landry, vstinner, quentel |
2015-08-07 15:06:48 | Peter Landry | set | messageid: <1438960008.12.0.887121398339.issue24764@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2015-08-07 15:06:48 | Peter Landry | link | issue24764 messages |
2015-08-07 15:06:47 | Peter Landry | create | |
|