httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: [vote] mod_ldap
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:09:33 GMT
On 07 Jul 2011, at 6:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> Only presently available options are available as choices to end this
> now unproductive discussion [any heretofore unseen complete abstration
> of ldap cannot be considered with no patches offered].  This vote is
> limited to the scope of the httpd project and expresses a preference,
> there is no technical basis demonstrated to carry a veto.

Five weeks ago you unilaterally chose the following option despite  
being warned at the time on dev@apr that it would be vetoed:

> [ ]  Retain ap_ldap API's in httpd 2.3 mod_ldap, as currently in trunk
>      (binding mod_ldap to ldap libs)

Calling for a vote 5 weeks later in an attempt to legitimise your  
action does not get around the rules of veto, which are "No veto can  
be overruled"[1].

This vote is void.

[1] http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html

> [2] vote thread removing ldap from apr-2.x;
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/201004.mbox/%3C4BD46614.6010503@rowe-clan.net%3E

This statement is misleading, I ask that people follow this link to  
see for themselves.

This vote thread called for "Abandon apr_ldap_* API's to httpd 2.3  
ldap, including required autoconf", not the removal of ldap from apr- 
v2.x.

This issue was not brought to the attention of the dev@httpd list, nor  
was dev@httpd invited to vote on it, and therefore this vote too is  
void.

Regards,
Graham
--


Mime
View raw message