On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, bch wrote:

> Is the inline patch I posted above acceptable, or should it be
> re-submitted as a collection of patches or something different ?

I'm personally a Windows man so I would like attachments if possible - trying to apply an inline git patch is a nightmare (just doesn't work due to line endings and Outlook / Hotmail messing about with the formatting!)

I know others here prefer inline so I would always recommend sending in both ;-)

From my brief review I would recommend the following naming as they are more in keepingwith the existing SSL informational items:

> + CURLINFO_NEGOTIATED_SSL = CURLINFO_LONG + 44,

CURLINFO_SSL_NEGOTIATED_VERSION

...and for consistency:

> + info->negotiated_ssl = -1L;

info->ssl_negotiated_version

A couple of small nits:

* I would recommend removing such lines as "/* bch ref -- NEGOTIATED_SSL info here (?) */"
* Open braces after a function declaration should be on the following line not as per conditional code like you appear to have done with "set_ssl_version_long(SSL *ssl, struct connectdata *conn) {"
* I would also recommend that the return type be on the beginning rather than on a separate line - I appreciate we have a mix of this at present :(

Kind Regards

Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2015-03-08