On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 12:02 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:47:16PM +0200, Jan Zeleny wrote:
> > Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > #111
> > > > I found this while closely going through the file to implement ghost
>
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 12:02 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:47:16PM +0200, Jan Zeleny wrote:
> > Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > #111
> > > > I found this while closely going through the file to implement ghost
>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:47:16PM +0200, Jan Zeleny wrote:
> Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > #111
> > > I found this while closely going through the file to implement ghost
> > > users. After discovering this, I re-checked it twice to be s
Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > #111
> > I found this while closely going through the file to implement ghost
> > users. After discovering this, I re-checked it twice to be sure. To
> > enter the block of code, it would require RFC2307 and popu
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:00:12AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> #111
> I found this while closely going through the file to implement ghost users.
> After discovering this, I re-checked it twice to be sure. To enter the block
> of code, it would require RFC2307 and populate_members set to false.
>