Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A31B6498 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14669 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2011 17:28:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 14577 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2011 17:28:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 14569 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jul 2011 17:28:33 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:28:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.50] (HELO mail-bw0-f50.google.com) (209.85.214.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:28:27 +0000 Received: by bwb11 with SMTP id 11so3642965bwb.37 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N6LDh9ccz5ztYKwxaPrw4xrmpheacshISffeXNg5CBc=; b=We16DOUfXEctALlFRMBmQh0aAX1A8HNlBO4rNtRogvFBtuO77IGiqBuWAL+FgzRI3j H0uvD/lKLf4EvBWvTRjTBXQNYSB6HGrIOpBM6t/5UBNuHxwd8pyED1E5qfm0ezd5RDH5 ja9on9RJ+XtFI1UL88Tzb3CHYnt5If/fw2Tk0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.65.137 with SMTP id xm9mr1134719bkb.376.1310318885756; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.113.133 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:28:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Is removal of the LDAP feature from APR trunk veto-able? From: Jeff Trawick To: APR Developer List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On 8 Jul 2011, at 20:43, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> Here's one attempt at approaching the question of features and >> veto-ability. =A0This is of course just my >> understanding^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hopinion. > > Thanks for opening this, abstracted from current disagreements. Thanks very much for contributing to a joyless exercise! (I hope more posts from the crowd are forthcoming.)