)]}'
{"swift/proxy/controllers/obj.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":2622,"name":"Samuel Merritt","email":"spam+launchpad@andcheese.org","username":"torgomatic"},"change_message_id":"a96cfd6db4ccb9fc7271bcba0a5873266e5828dc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":2092,"context_line":"        # etags. However, they all have the original object\u0027s etag stored in"},{"line_number":2093,"context_line":"        # sysmeta, so we copy that here so the client gets it."},{"line_number":2094,"context_line":"        if (is_success(resp.status_int) or is_redirection(resp.status_int) or"},{"line_number":2095,"context_line":"                resp.status_int \u003d\u003d HTTP_REQUESTED_RANGE_NOT_SATISFIABLE):"},{"line_number":2096,"context_line":"            resp.headers[\u0027Etag\u0027] \u003d resp.headers.get("},{"line_number":2097,"context_line":"                \u0027X-Object-Sysmeta-Ec-Etag\u0027)"},{"line_number":2098,"context_line":"            resp.accept_ranges \u003d \u0027bytes\u0027"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"1af94dfe_56ba31c1","line":2095,"updated":"2016-03-16 23:29:59.000000000","message":"Can we just remove this conditional? We know that any Etag in the response is wrong, and if there\u0027s an X-Object-Sysmeta-EC-Etag, then it\u0027s correct. If we always did this, then the user would either see the right Etag or no Etag instead of an incorrect Etag.","commit_id":"88cfb1a0120c1a93fc2d8dd6adf0ef229d7b6a7f"},{"author":{"_account_id":7847,"name":"Alistair Coles","email":"alistairncoles@gmail.com","username":"acoles"},"change_message_id":"18911ba20e596988a24d1a6b0958795ab81fdcf9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":2092,"context_line":"        # etags. However, they all have the original object\u0027s etag stored in"},{"line_number":2093,"context_line":"        # sysmeta, so we copy that here so the client gets it."},{"line_number":2094,"context_line":"        if (is_success(resp.status_int) or is_redirection(resp.status_int) or"},{"line_number":2095,"context_line":"                resp.status_int \u003d\u003d HTTP_REQUESTED_RANGE_NOT_SATISFIABLE):"},{"line_number":2096,"context_line":"            resp.headers[\u0027Etag\u0027] \u003d resp.headers.get("},{"line_number":2097,"context_line":"                \u0027X-Object-Sysmeta-Ec-Etag\u0027)"},{"line_number":2098,"context_line":"            resp.accept_ranges \u003d \u0027bytes\u0027"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"1af94dfe_0e323b5f","line":2095,"in_reply_to":"1af94dfe_56ba31c1","updated":"2016-03-17 11:51:00.000000000","message":"Done. However, Accept-Ranges is not always included in e.g. a 412 with replication policy, so I am leaving the condition for adding accept-ranges.\n\nIf we decide accept-ranges *should* be added to 412\u0027s then we should fix that for both policy types. My reading of the RFC is that it is the server\u0027s choice as to whether accept-ranges is sent or not.","commit_id":"88cfb1a0120c1a93fc2d8dd6adf0ef229d7b6a7f"}]}