Paul Querna wrote:
>
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >> I have a bug I'd like to squash in mod_auth_ldap.c in 2.0 that doesn't
> >> exist in 2.1/2.2 (non-existent authn_ldap_request_t req struct during
> >> auth check)... since the module is experimental, can I assume CTR ?
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > IMO, imposing RTC on experimental modules is counter productive.
>
> -1 (vote, not veto).
>
> It should be reviewed, regardless of being on applicable to 2.0. Put it
> in the status file, just like everything else. I feel that being in
> 'experimental' is not a good excuse for not requiring the same level of
> review as any other change.
>
We have a hard enough time getting 3 +1s on non-experimental
module code changes :)
How about lazy consensus? A note is placed in STATUS, with
a pointer to the patch or svn-rev-diff, and if no one
objects after a period of time, it's folded in...
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Sith happens" - Yoda
|