On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 14:32 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 10:31 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Sorry for breaking the thread, but my email server seems to have lost > > track of the original emails (they're not showing up in my folders). > > > > Jakub, thanks for catching the ioa_common.c issue. Fixed. > > > > I didn't bother differentiating the messages in the API because they're > > A) unimportant and B) not sufficiently different to be worth adding new > > translatable strings for. > > > > I did fix the manpages though. Those SHOULD be documented. > > > > New patch attached. > > > > Also, this is designed to apply atop my patches for the RootDSE/search > > base fix (which still needs reviewing). See "[PATCH] LDAP: Do not fail > > if RootDSE check cannot determine search bases" > > This is a matter of taste I guess but I find it difficult to read and > remember th anme you cage to the options. > Why entry_cache_user_timeout and not just user_cache_timeout (and so on > for other maps) ? > It sounds more readable to me. > > > Also I understand why you do these changes: > - timeout = dp_opt_get_int(state->opts->basic, SDAP_ENTRY_CACHE_TIMEOUT); > + timeout = dp_opt_get_int(state->opts->basic, SDAP_SEARCH_TIMEOUT); > > But I think they belong in a separate patch, as they seem to fix using > the wrong timeout but are not directly related to the change the patch > is about ? > > Everything else looks fine.
Sure, I agree. When I push them I'll split them into a separate patch.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
