bug#30154: [PATCH] web: Add http-patch.

[Arun Isaac]

>> Yes, exporting 'request' alone would serve my purpose, although
>> 'define-http-verb' would make my script much shorter. But, I'll leave it
>> to your judgement. Should I send a new patch exporting 'request' alone?
>
> Could you do that?  The ‘request’ procedure can simply be made public
> and otherwise left unchanged, but we’d need a docstring and an entry in
> the manual.  Can you take a look?

Yes, I'll send you a patch within a few days.

> I’ll happily apply the patch afterwards, and I promise you won’t have to
> wait as much as you did so far!  :-)

I am generally quite patient with patch review, but yes, this one did
take too long. :-)