Auth_ldap experimental status (was:Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 9 23:45:36 2005)
I am of the same opinion as Justin in that I believe that multiple auth providers can be put into 2.2 at anytime. If it happens to make it before initial release fine. If it is after, it is just additional functionality which won't break backward compatibility. As far as backporting other authnz_ldap patches, Josh's patch is minor and can be easily done. Other's may take a lot more work and the problem that we have right now is that there are very few of us that are looking at auth_ldap and even fewer that are reviewing backports and voting. So getting the required 3-votes doesn't happen very fast if at all. Also, if we can get 2.2 moving and out soon, backports won't matter anyway. Brad Jess Holle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:06:21 AM Agreed on all points *except* that we *really* need multiple LDAP providers as soon as possible. Thus if there is any way to get this into 2.2 that would be *very* helpful. Well, I'd also like to see Josh's patch back in 2.0.x as we'll have to continue patching it into each and every Apache 2.0.x build ourselves if it is not merged into 2.0.x. [I don't like leaving crashes around in executables we ship when they are so easily amended.] -- Jess Holle
Re: Auth_ldap experimental status (was:Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 9 23:45:36 2005)
At 11:47 AM 3/10/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote: I am of the same opinion as Justin in that I believe that multiple auth providers can be put into 2.2 at anytime. Given that we won't be doing multiple Auth Configs inside each protocol, there is no tie in here to declaring ldap non-experimental. I think the democratic thing here is for those who OBJECT to making it non-experimental to justify their specific bugs/objections (not 'this should be 2.2' - but technical justification) that must be fixed for them to be satisfied, in 2.0 STATUS. Then, it's up to those interested in seeing it advanced from experimental to propose the backports as patches (they aren't trivial with the changes to the auth schema), and collect the appropriate votes. Once those patches are backported, it can be promoted. In any case, on both sides of the argument, don't forget the only valid veto is technical merit. Due to the changes in config syntax, waiting on vendors to update their modules, etc, there will be a lag, so it isn't an unreasonable request. +1 in principal, waiting to vote on merit till I have some objections and patches to review. Bill