William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:Yep.At 08:55 AM 9/22/2004, you wrote:Perhaps the fix to bug #24801 I recently provided could be included as well...This patch?http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=12817 This issue actually goes way, way back to auth_ldap 1.6.0 (i.e. the rudedog.org Apache 1.3 module) at least. The same changes fix auth_ldap 1.6.0 by the way (though the patch needs to be altered slightly in that case as some of the surrounding type names, etc, are different).I'm not as familiar with this cache code, Graham could you look at this? In any case, it's committed first to 2.1-dev, then reviewed by three folks, then committed back to 2.0. Unlikely to hit 2.0.52, but we will be releasing a 2.0.53 soon. If this is a regression from how 2.0.50 worked, we would redouble our efforts to include it immediately. Understood -- and, no, this does not fall into this category. This has just been the one of the biggest issue with Apache for our customers (at least that I am aware of) for quite some time.With every release, we announce this version "is the best version available". When a regression of something that worked in the previous release suddenly breaks a new release, we work very hard to put it right again so users can adopt the latest version. It's a somewhat greater weight to get those re-fixed than to fix each and every outstanding bug. No problem. It was buried in my various overly verbose and numerous postings regarding util_ldap from last weekend. [Sorry for the numerous posts....]Participating on the dev list certainly will help get your patches reviewed more quickly, so thanks for pointing out that patch. -- Jess Holle |