Use different parser for cookiejar files #3886
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The original parser that was used in git-lfs#3825 brings in a lot of dependencies that complicate packaging git-lfs. This replaces it with a small parser I wrote with almost no dependencies. I've tested this as extensively as i can and it seems to work correctly.
bk2204
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2019
bk2204
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2019
Use different parser for cookiejar files
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The original parser that was used in #3825 brings in a lot of dependencies that complicate packaging git-lfs. This replaces it with a small parser I wrote with almost no dependencies. I've tested this as extensively as i can and it seems to work correctly. I see that it did pull in a slightly newer version of golang.org/x/net but I don't think that should be a concern.
This closes #3870