On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:46:30PM -0700, 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
Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:46:30PM -0700, 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
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 ?
Hey Jim
can you post the patch ?
while this discussion about
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 ?
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
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
At 03:36 PM 8/8/2005, 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
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
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:36 PM 8/8/2005, 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
Bill Stoddard wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:36 PM 8/8/2005, 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
On Monday, August 08, 2005 at 3:23 pm, in message
Yep, I'm +1 on RTC for both cache and ldap/.
Bill
Did you mean CTR?
Brad
Bill Stoddard wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:36 PM 8/8/2005, 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
+1 Deja vu, this thread sounds a lot like a discussion we had
during/post-ApacheCon 2004. I would still like to see the patches come through
trunk first just to make sure we don't miss something going forward. In the
case of auth_ldap and util_ldap, the 2.0 code base was never officially
At 04:49 PM 8/8/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
+1 Deja vu, this thread sounds a lot like a discussion we had
during/post-ApacheCon 2004. I would still like to see the patches come
through trunk first just to make sure we don't miss something going forward.
+1; too many folks are focused on
--On August 8, 2005 1:46:30 PM -0700 Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-1 (vote, not veto).
-1 as well.
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
