)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":1179,"name":"Clay Gerrard","email":"clay.gerrard@gmail.com","username":"clay-gerrard"},"change_message_id":"cfa28bb32e2341ac3980256e2fbf400823f0f166","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"go: lower-case incoming ETag"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"Lower-case request ETag on PUT, so comparisons work correctly."},{"line_number":10,"context_line":""},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"Change-Id: I769b8ef81dae0d9cb7c9da3753b98b8e00d0293f"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"7a016987_3223bebf","line":9,"updated":"2015-05-15 06:17:58.000000000","message":"Make the comparison of the ETag header value and computed md5 on PUT case insensitive to better match the behavior of swift.obj.server\n\nIf-Match comparison is still case sensitive.","commit_id":"68a5354f5bf7691219e97ea63cef7e977e11c9fa"}],"go/objectserver/main.go":[{"author":{"_account_id":1179,"name":"Clay Gerrard","email":"clay.gerrard@gmail.com","username":"clay-gerrard"},"change_message_id":"cfa28bb32e2341ac3980256e2fbf400823f0f166","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":291,"context_line":"\t\t\tmetadata[key] \u003d request.Header.Get(key)"},{"line_number":292,"context_line":"\t\t}"},{"line_number":293,"context_line":"\t}"},{"line_number":294,"context_line":"\trequestEtag :\u003d strings.ToLower(request.Header.Get(\"ETag\"))"},{"line_number":295,"context_line":"\tif requestEtag !\u003d \"\" \u0026\u0026 requestEtag !\u003d metadata[\"ETag\"] {"},{"line_number":296,"context_line":"\t\thttp.Error(writer, \"Unprocessable Entity\", 422)"},{"line_number":297,"context_line":"\t\treturn"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-go","patch_set":1,"id":"7a016987_1278c2f1","line":294,"updated":"2015-05-15 06:17:58.000000000","message":"surprising to me that swift.obj.server does this - you can\u0027t use the UPCASE Etag with an if-match, so why is it reasonable for accept for a PUT?\n\nvery strange, but the behavior leaks all the way to the client API, so this change is more compatible - so... better?  yeah better.  better than breaking clients anyway.\n\nDid you catch this from an existing functest or do we need one that sends a UPCASE Etag on PUT?","commit_id":"68a5354f5bf7691219e97ea63cef7e977e11c9fa"}]}