William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
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
  
Yep.
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.
  
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).
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.
  
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.
Participating on the dev list certainly will help get your patches
reviewed more quickly, so thanks for pointing out that patch.
  
No problem.  It was buried in my various overly verbose and numerous postings regarding util_ldap from last weekend.  [Sorry for the numerous posts....]

--
Jess Holle

Reply via email to