On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 02:55:05PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/25/2011 11:17 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:09:09AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 01/25/2011 10:59 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> Why don
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/26/2011 05:51 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 02:55:05PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 11:17 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:09:09AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 01/25/2011 10:59
On 1/26/11 3:54 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 01/26/2011 05:51 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 02:55:05PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 01/25/2011 11:17 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:09:09AM -
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
...snip...
> Ok, so now that we know we have a patch to accomplish this... we have to
> ask ourselves this question: are we willing to push this upstream, or
> should we stick to the principles we've maintained up to this point?
>
> - --
>
Hi,
this patch fixes an issue seen with Active Directory and large groups.
bye,
Sumit
From 26295179929f8c9da20bafdc134866e9b96f2ad2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sumit Bose
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:51:02 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Do not fail if attributes are empty
Currently we fail if attribute
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 05:11 -0800, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> ...snip...
> > Ok, so now that we know we have a patch to accomplish this... we have to
> > ask ourselves this question: are we willing to push this upstream, or
> > should we
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 05:11 -0800, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>> ...snip...
>> > Ok, so now that we know we have a patch to accomplish this... we have to
>> > ask ourselves this quest