On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:56:10PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> Well... this auth stuff doesn't even change the API. It provides a new
> opt-in arrangement for authenticating.
>
> (no new APIs for authz, tho; the code is just being refactored rather than
> new APIs to support that; the auth_checke
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:15:14PM +0200, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > IMO, we shouldn't branch, and we shouldn't bother with a version bump. I
> > think we can ensure backwards compat for the directives, and only minor
> > changes in the modules which need to be LoadModule'd. That is quite
> IMO, we shouldn't branch, and we shouldn't bother with a version bump. I
> think we can ensure backwards compat for the directives, and only minor
> changes in the modules which need to be LoadModule'd. That is quite fine for
Aye - it is more the API than the directives.
Dw
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:46:03PM +0200, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > branches in CVS are awful (perhaps not so with SVN though).
>
> Actually - the branching is trivial - it is the merging or the MFC which
> is a bit of a pain. I'd not worry about it. Take a look at the FreeBSD
> crowd w
> branches in CVS are awful (perhaps not so with SVN though).
Actually - the branching is trivial - it is the merging or the MFC which
is a bit of a pain. I'd not worry about it. Take a look at the FreeBSD
crowd who maintains several stable/release/current branches with
relatively little overhea
A few points/concerns:
At 1:15 PM -0700 8/28/02, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:42:53PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>> Just the same one I've had all along. Fix it in 2.0. If it is a major
>> config change, then we document it. We have made changes like this
>> before.
>
>I woul
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:42:53PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Just the same one I've had all along. Fix it in 2.0. If it is a major
> config change, then we document it. We have made changes like this
> before.
I would consider this to be part of 2.0, even if we call it 2.1.
Let me broaden thi
torings in 2.0, and start pushing them to 2.1.
- Danny
-Original Message-
From: Padwa, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 3:55 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Going to 2.1? was Re: authentication rewrite
> I'd really like to see us start attackin
> I'd really like to see us start attacking smaller-grain problems and
releasing those
> features more often, rather than lining up years and years of "ooh me too
and this
> too" until we've got bugs coming out of our ears and nothing stable out
the door for
> our users and testers. IMHO, a new a
ply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:25:36 -0700
>From: Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Going to 2.1? was Re: authentication rewrite
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:57:42AM -0700
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:25:36PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > branches in CVS are awful (perhaps not so with SVN though).
>
> I have only heard anecdotal evidence for this, but have actually
> used cvs branches on other large and very successf
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:25:36PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> branches in CVS are awful (perhaps not so with SVN though).
I have only heard anecdotal evidence for this, but have actually
used cvs branches on other large and very successful projects
before. (*cough* PHP! *ahem*). I'd rather
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:57:42AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> This is a big enough of a change that I would be willing to allow
> for a branch to 2.1 at this point (not a full new repository, just
> a cvs branch) so that you and others who are interested can work on
> the auth stuff, and so we
13 matches
Mail list logo
