httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHO...@novell.com>
Subject Re: ldap
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:15:03 GMT
I am in total agreement.  +1 for putting it into experimental.  I guess
by saying "working on it" I do mean "maintaining it".  Unless I missed
it somewhere in the code, it seems that one of the pieces that got
dropped on the floor when LDAP support was removed from APU was LDAP
SSL.  This needs to be put back into AUTH_LDAP and may need to be
#ifdef'd by platform.  So there is some work and definately some testing
to be done.  I would hate to see a good piece of code lay dormant.

Brad

Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com 

>>> minfrin@sharp.fm Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:46:42 AM >>>
Brad Nicholes wrote:

>   So it seems like we burned all of our bridges.  We had somebody
> working on it until we added it in.  Then the author stopped so we
took
> it out.  Now we not only don't have anybody working on it, we also
don't
> have it.

I don't think it's a case of noone working on it (there have been some

commits lately), I think it's a case of it not getting any exposure. 
People "out there" don't consider it part of httpd if it doesn't come
in 
the httpd download.

Also the concept of "working on it" needs clarification. If the thing 
works as it stands, then there is no reason to commit anything to it. 
However some people have translated "no commits to the code" as meaning

"noone is maintaining it", which I believe is wrong.

"Maintaining it" means that someone here is willing to respond to 
reported PRs, and to answer questions about it, and to review patches.

 From what I've seen there are a few people here who have shown their 
willingness to do it to date (in the form of emails answered and
patches 
committed), so to all intents and purposes we can call the thing 
"maintained".

> IMO, if we put it back at least in experimental, maybe we can
> get developers working on it again (including the author).

If it goes in experimental, then we can get it *tested*. The code came

from a well established v1.3 module with a rich feature set. It was
then 
modified to fit into Apache v2.0. There is no reason I can see why it 
shouldn't work as it stands, apart from bugs introduced by it being in
a 
threaded environment where it wasn't before (some of which have already

been found and fixed).

I would argue that "experimental" would be the best place for it until

it matures.

> Since the code already exists and seems to
> work, putting it into /experimental until it stabilizes seems like a
> simple thing to do.

No argument there.

Regards,
Graham
-- 
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm 
	"There's a moon
					over Bourbon Street
						tonight..."


Mime
View raw message