Auth_ldap experimental status (was:Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 9 23:45:36 2005)

[Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com>]

   I am of the same opinion as Justin in that I believe that multiple
auth providers can be put into 2.2 at anytime.  If it happens to make it
before initial release fine.  If it is after, it is just additional
functionality which won't break backward compatibility.  As far as
backporting other authnz_ldap patches, Josh's patch is minor and can be
easily done.  Other's may take a lot more work and the problem that we
have right now is that there are very few of us that are looking at
auth_ldap and even fewer that are reviewing backports and voting.  So
getting the required 3-votes doesn't happen very fast if at all.  Also,
if we can get 2.2 moving and out soon, backports won't matter anyway.

Brad

>>> Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:06:21 AM >>>
>Agreed on all points *except* that we *really* need multiple LDAP 
>providers as soon as possible.  Thus if there is any way to get this 
>into 2.2 that would be *very* helpful.
>
>Well, I'd also like to see Josh's patch back in 2.0.x as we'll have to

>continue patching it into each and every Apache 2.0.x build ourselves
if 
>it is not merged into 2.0.x.  [I don't like leaving crashes around in

>executables we ship when they are so easily amended.]
>
>--
>Jess Holle

Re: Auth_ldap experimental status (was:Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 9 23:45:36 2005)

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 11:47 AM 3/10/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>   I am of the same opinion as Justin in that I believe that multiple
>auth providers can be put into 2.2 at anytime.

Given that we won't be doing multiple <Auth> Configs inside each
protocol, there is no tie in here to declaring ldap non-experimental.

I think the democratic thing here is for those who OBJECT to making
it non-experimental to justify their specific bugs/objections (not
'this should be 2.2' - but technical justification) that must be
fixed for them to be satisfied, in 2.0 STATUS.

Then, it's up to those interested in seeing it advanced from
experimental to propose the backports as patches (they aren't 
trivial with the changes to the auth schema), and collect the
appropriate votes.

Once those patches are backported, it can be promoted.

In any case, on both sides of the argument, don't forget the
only valid veto is technical merit.

Due to the changes in config syntax, waiting on vendors to
update their modules, etc, there will be a lag, so it isn't
an unreasonable request.  +1 in principal, waiting to vote
on merit till I have some objections and patches to review.

Bill