Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Document the HTTP transport protocol

Scott Chacon [off-list ref] writes:

I understand, it wasn't meant as a criticism, I was just curious why
this file was never included.  That the series was marked as RFC makes
sense.  Could I request that this one patch be included?  Or if Shawn
has a more recent one?

I also understand and I didn't mean to sound as if I took offense.  I very
much appreciate reminders like yours of old discussions and patches that
were basically good but did not reach conclusion at the end to avoid
wasted effort.

A pointer is good, but if you are reviving an old patch, it would be
much easier if you did a resend/forward for people to comment in-line,
by the way.