Jeremy Evans

I'm not in favor of backporting this feature, but if we do, we certainly shouldn't backport to 2.0-stable, which is unmaintained. 2.2-stable is in security maintenance only mode, so it...

I'm closing this. There is no way we are going to apply patches to 2.0-stable at this point.

I don't think we should backport this to 2.2 before backporting it to 3.0. It's also not a security issue, so it shouldn't be considered for backport to 2.2, IMO.

It won't stop working, it will just require that users of Ruby 3.4+ and Rack 2.2 list base64 explicitly in their Gemfile.

I'm still against backporting this to 2.2, as it is not a security issue, and users can work around it by adding base64 to Gemfile.

I not opposed to adding this to the README. The README could stand to be updated, as it still states "Rack v3.0.0 was recently released", and that was over 18...

Doesn't Rack already support this if the name ends with `[]`? Then Rack will have the parameter store an array of uploaded files. My advice would be to use `field[]`...

> > Doesn't Rack already support this if the name ends with `[]`? > > Yes but that's a Rails invention, not part of the spec. While it originally came...

I'm against this change. I think you can use `Rack::Multipart.parse_multipart(env, Rack::Multipart::ParamList)` to get a list of pairs, and use that to implement the behavior you want.

My guess would be you get Ruby 3 level of performance (significantly slower) on Ruby 2 if you pass the `--with-bundled-md5 --with-bundled-sha1 --with-bundled-sha2` options when configuring. This is because the...