directory-kerby mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zheng, Kai" <>
Subject RE: AP-REP message
Date Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:52:13 GMT
I don't think we'd better change the scheme as long as we only claim the right things in the
right release.


-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [] 
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: AP-REP message

Le 04/01/16 11:40, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
> Hi Emmanuel,
> I understand your review comments and actually they're very insightful. I may be a little
nervous but I did have to convey the current situation the codes in so that you can aware
it why I would insist on some points for myself. Some of the codes are still initial and lacking
something, that does not mean we shouldn't the project. As you may understand, a project may
be released out with some features still in its experimental status unless the feature itself
isn't claimed to be available. Kerberos contains quite a few extensions and updates since
4210, as you may be noted, we're incrementally implementing them one by one, and some of them
may come across some RCs or even formal releases. So all in all, please don't be surprised
when you see still immature codes when you're doing the great review. Thanks.

No worry at all. I see no reason to block a release because there is something missing (we
do that all the time...).

I just wanted to stress out the fact that it's important to convey teh right message to our
users. This is a disucssion we must have asside this thread : what version scheme should we
use ?

View raw message