From dev-return-21582-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Tue Sep 25 18:01:50 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 15366 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2007 18:01:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Sep 2007 18:01:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 50479 invoked by uid 500); 25 Sep 2007 18:01:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 50439 invoked by uid 500); 25 Sep 2007 18:01:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 50428 invoked by uid 99); 25 Sep 2007 18:01:39 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:01:39 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of akarasulu@gmail.com designates 209.85.146.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.146.176] (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:03:54 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m38so2838284waf for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=IueUTi/Kg1GWk0+YmKYnNeyj4ZVjCTqTtmZZtuH8NbY=; b=URxPz5l9HwDvMw3KDibln3PCe3UBdFz3deVSe/8+igKAP0TjCFiWBiiZkgAmwRchDnJYTWKJRwW+zmwdxCWlkUINEE+ymk+v2waNA3ynGRg4N4Y9R+rXeaTAsD+50AO6kZjrklWcBcRkLzj9yVV0lp28rXpCI+717KmlB11dH6g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=oxFadM7sakCQ7yqQhzs+dOoLeefguuMeXouEdlq7kJCkz6aliJDUFWnFwXxRoJJ9yY+mRzcc7hJfRGPOcBtmKpEezrqZ8oSaydt5sG37QQtw9EMlaHLlRh8L8CO76ibkew6yY+WT1BA5R1OWO7HYkJuubtK30NFxqh/K7Cyomrc= Received: by 10.114.152.17 with SMTP id z17mr7553046wad.1190743275345; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.76.8 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:01:15 -0400 From: "Alex Karasulu" Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com To: "Apache Directory Developers List" , elecharny@iktek.com Subject: Re: [ApacheDS] Ramifications of removing configuration beans In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2331_3597710.1190743275355" References: X-Google-Sender-Auth: e1456e036f872609 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_2331_3597710.1190743275355 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 9/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > > For those reasons, I would say : keep 2.0 conf as is, and do > experimentations in a branch. So we're not going to be too free to experiment from now on in 1.5 branch? This sort of breaks with our general policy on branches yet it's appealing in many other ways. It's just a matter of trade offs. It's more important in this case for us to just make a decision. Either option is fine with me since both choices take relatively the same time and energy. I started this thread to see what people are thinking about it and it sounds as though there is a split. Perhaps we just need a vote and go with it. Alex ------=_Part_2331_3597710.1190743275355 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
On 9/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
For those reasons, I would say : keep 2.0 conf as is, and do
experimentations in a branch.

So we're not going to be too free to experiment from now on in 1.5 branch?  This sort of
breaks with our general policy on branches yet it's appealing in many other ways.  It's
just a matter of trade offs.  It's more important in this case for us to just make a decision.

Either option is fine with me since both choices take relatively the same time and energy. 
I started this thread to see what people are thinking about it and it sounds as though there
is a split.  Perhaps we just need a vote and go with it.

Alex

------=_Part_2331_3597710.1190743275355--