If a simple svn merge makes the back port happen then why not to have a tight 1.0?  This is mostly a matter of dependencies and making sure the sar contents are correct.

Alex

On 3/12/07, Aron Sogor <asogor@buni.org> wrote:
I see little reason to back port if we have a bigger better thing working.

Aron
Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/07, *Aron Sogor* <asogor@buni.org <mailto: asogor@buni.org>>
> wrote:
>
>
>     I am working on a project called Meldware at buni.org
>     < http://buni.org>. I would like to
>     expose our AddressBook to TBird/Evolution using LDAP.
>
>     I would like to resurrect your simple .sar deployment in JBOSS,
>     and make
>     it part of your the DS offering.  How stable is the 1.5 line, or
>     better
>     done in 1.0x line?
>
>
> Aron to answer your question 1.5 is stable and usable with the dynamic
> schema feature
> and the almost operational replication capabilities.  Note however
> that this (trunk) is our
> feature introduction branch.  We use odd minor numbers to denote
> feature introduction branches
> as opposed to bug fix branches.
>
> 1.5.0 should be released sometime soon and it's a great time for us to
> make sure that the sar
> module actually works.  This would be the place to make your changes.
> We could back port
> your fixes to the sar module to the 1.0 branch as well.
>
>     After talking with Alex, what is everybody's feel,
>     interest to collaborate?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Alex