directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <>
Subject Re: Bugs status
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:43:48 GMT
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> Hi all !
> Here is the list of bugs we have :


> DIREVE-310     To be investigate after 1.0-RC-1
> DIREVE-314    To be fixed for 1.0-RC1
> DIREVE-308    To be fixed for 1.0-RC1
> DIREVE-297    ???

      [Access Control] Autonomous areas for AC must not overlap

Can be done after 1.0 RC1 ... before 1.0.

> DIREVE-277    To be fixed for 1.1
> DIREVE-276    ???

      Search for super OC does not return subclasses if add op does not
      add complete objectClass lineage

Needs to be done before 1.0 release. 

> DIREVE-253    Is it a ADS problem or not ???

This is an API issue and does not effect our server release.  We are not 
making the internal embedding API 1.0 ... it will still be under 
construction while ApacheDS 1.0 is getting bombarded.  Also I have no 
clue if this issue is our fault ... probably is.

> DIR-123        State ? 1.0.1 ? 1.1

Don't know don't care.  I'm waiting get rid of this spring stuff.  OSGi 
will get rid of this stuff which is only there in standalone/simple/main.

> DIR-115        State ?

Man we need to reorg JIRA people are putting issues in the wrong place 
like this one and the last one.  Can't blame them.  Oh this one is 
intended to be the case.  I probably did not comment on it becasue is an 
embedding issue.  Embedding issues for apacheds is not a big worry.  
Let's put these issues on the bottom of the list: let's fix em after 
ApacheDS 1.2.

> DIRLDAP-84    To be fixed for 1.0-RC1

I'd say for RCx.

> DIRLDAP-75    To be fixed for 1.0-RCx

Looks like we already have it no? (Twix Support for LDAP Controls 

> DIRLDAP-51    Partially fixed. To be fixed for 1.0-RC1

Incorrect matched DN in the bind response (and others depending on the 
result code) <>
Yea this should be done before 1.0 too.

> DIRLDAP-37    Postponed to 1.0.1

Oh yeah this is pretty serious hehe ... I thought I fixed this too.  
Perhaps we should be done with this by 1.0 but again its on an API not 
on core server functionality.  So yeah ok we can defer this to 1.0.1.

> Could everybody check those bugs and tell me which is there status?
> Thanks a lot !
Sorry I took a while.


View raw message