cc @nodejs/http @nodejs/documentation

LGTM

Generally LGTM, I'd like to understand how such a gap has formed and how to identify the gaps in the future - would rather we wait with the merge until someone from /http or someone with historic reference can shed some light.

I've updated the formatting.

LGTM. I think squashing the three commits, would be cool.

I'm rather new to git (we use mercurial in shop).
Tried squashing following the instructions:
http://blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2012-11-08-how-to-squash-commits-in-a-github-pull-request

I can't tell if I;ve done ok.

Please verify.

If it's too much trouble you can revert the squash and we'll do it for you on our end (the squishing).

I think that what happened is that you pulled master on top of your changes instead of rebasing your changes on top of master.

OK. I think I've got it right this time :)

Almost perfect :) Since I cannot land this anyway, I don't mind too much, but if you can It'd be appreciated that the commit was named during rebase (see contributor guide). git rebase -i HEAD~1 and just editing the commit message in your text editor, should be working. Something like doc, http: add .addTrailers() description would be very descriptive. git push --force afterwards.

Thanks for the effort @mrgleba and welcome to the (horrible) wonders of git. 👯

Done.

/cc @indutny

Ping @indutny
@mrgleba ... can you please rebase this :-)

Yikes, missed this. Looking through it.

Hm... perhaps, we should just mention that it inherits from the OutgoingMessage? Seems like this way we will avoid the duplication.

Ping... should this still happen?

Closing given the lack of forward progress