On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: >> On 02 Jun 2011, at 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/2011 5:37 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: >>>> >>>> I see a vote, and no on-list discussion that preceded it. Not only that, >>>> I see a vote on >>>> the dev@apr list proposing an as yet unheard of solution that concerns a >>>> completely >>>> separate project, with no discussion having happened on either project. >>>> This is not how a >>>> project at the ASF works. >>> >>> Quit whining, of course this is how an ASF project works; there was a >>> discussion, >>> it ate up a good part of the list bandwidth, with discussion and >>> suggestions of >>> how to fix, and no fix forthcoming, and a conclusive decision on list; >>> >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/200903.mbox/%3C5c902b9e0903240326r3222ac90k15dcb7f34d2d1587@mail.gmail.com%3E >>> >>> Justin had brought this to the list from a f2f hackathon for a decision as >>> this >>> blocked 2.0 in 2009(!). >> >> "So, during the conversations we've had here in Amsterdam regarding >> combining APR and APR-util". Another example of discussions taken and >> decisions made off list. >> >> This is not how an ASF project works, and wearing my PMC member's hat, I >> consider this continued practice a risk to this project. >> >>> but you had years to set aside time, and couldn't be bothered. >> >> I am thoroughly disgusted by this remark. >> >> I have spent weeks and weeks of my time on my dime solving RFC violations in >> mod_cache that were contributed to us in 2003, in addition to a huge amount >> of other work on fixing the mod_cache API in time for the imminent release >> of httpd v2.4, and this is simply more important right now. A further >> enormous time sink was resolving your issues you demanded fixed in the >> apr_crypto API, which you carried on complaining about even after the work >> was completed - you'd hadn't even noticed the work had been done. >> >> The Apache Way is community over code, a community working together makes >> for high quality code that is safe to build upon. When one member of a >> community starts behaving abusively towards other members of the community, >> the code suffers. Again, wearing my PMC member's hat, this has got to stop. >> >>>  (In the >>> interim, I had to set aside time to make the merge to mod_ldap - that is >>> how the ASF works, [s]he who does the work makes the decisions.) >> >> I have already declared my intention to veto any attempt to dump this code >> in httpd. Our end users and vendors deserve to be treated better than this. >> >> Regards, >> Graham > > There's a lot of extraneous information here which is not related to > removing LDAP from APR 2.0-dev. > > What are the critical facts? > > LDAP support in APR 2.0: > > * there was [almost] no support for preserving the status quo; those > that spoke up wanted either to make it a full API or drop it > ** more wanted to drop it > ** Graham offered to do the work to make it a full API > > * AFAIK we did not resolve the fact that more people spoke up for > removal than for making it a full API ("tentative compromise"?) > > * nobody got around to either removing it or making it a full API for > a long time afterwards, for the same multitude of reasons that other > things do not get done > > * wrowe finally got around to take action, which was to yank it > ** I dunno if that was preceded by a notice, which would have been > "nice"  (no, I haven't spent much time in my inbox :( ) > > Any dispute so far? > > What is veto-able?  Nothing, AFAICT.  There's no technical issue. > > Separately, the current state of the code matches the group think when > this was discussed before.  If the group think changes, it can come > right back in, in a state that matches the group think. > > Where are users left? > > httpd users aren't expected to be left out, but that's not our problem here (since httpd is working on a solution that doesn't rely on APR) > What is the set of APR users which depend on the moderate help > provided by apr-util 1.x for dealing with multiple LDAP toolkit?  I > don't know.  I doubt that many users are impacted, and the moderate > level of assistance provided by apr-util wasn't the normal APR > experience anyway.  Those users didn't step up to help at any rate. > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien...