You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/08/05 16:54:44 UTC
[VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Please vote for your choice.
[ ] apr 2.0 should support an incomplete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for good)
[ ] apr 2.0 should support a complete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for now, reapply if ever completed)
[ ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
or rm ldap/ if not completed)
[ ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
(do not revert r799085! rm ldap/ if not completed)
[ ] apr 2.0 should should drop ldap support completely
(please rm ldap/ already)
[ ] I don't care
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> [x] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
> (revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
> or rm ldap/ if not completed)
I think it would be useful for developers (specially also for external
developers as consumers of APR) to have a LDAP.STATUS file (or
LDAP.TODO) where the points in detail we expect to be done to make it
complete would be listed; this would also explain to external developers
whats currently lacks with the LDAP support.
Gün.
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [X] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
> (revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
> or rm ldap/ if not completed)
There is no point making it more difficult for the LDAP people to get
this work done.
If we are ready for a v2.0.0 release, then this makes sense. Not before.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
> [+1 ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
> (revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
> or rm ldap/ if not completed)
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 08/12/2009 11:03 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Is this vote over or should we wait for further votes?
>> Please find the current results below
>
> The vote is over. We will revert, and whenever anyone feels like
> rolling APR 2.0, they may simply svn rm apr/ldap if it has not been
> completed.
>
> I'm very glad that it attracted four people with some level of
> interest in apr's ldap support. I've been worried that it was all
> essentially abandonware (and it might be) but to have this many who
> express an immediate interest in maintaining support is reassuring.
>
> Thanks to all who voted. I cannot revert conveniently, but will do
> so the next time I have connectivity unless someone else beats me to
> it. Since it was gone a week or two without note, it should be ok
> for the few days it would take me to get back to it.
Ping? Do you have time to revert?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Is this vote over or should we wait for further votes?
> Please find the current results below
The vote is over. We will revert, and whenever anyone feels like
rolling APR 2.0, they may simply svn rm apr/ldap if it has not been
completed.
I'm very glad that it attracted four people with some level of
interest in apr's ldap support. I've been worried that it was all
essentially abandonware (and it might be) but to have this many who
express an immediate interest in maintaining support is reassuring.
Thanks to all who voted. I cannot revert conveniently, but will do
so the next time I have connectivity unless someone else beats me to
it. Since it was gone a week or two without note, it should be ok
for the few days it would take me to get back to it.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
Is this vote over or should we wait for further votes?
Please find the current results below
On 08/05/2009 04:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Please vote for your choice.
>
> [ ] apr 2.0 should support an incomplete ldap interface
> (revert r799085 for good)
0
> [ ] apr 2.0 should support a complete ldap interface
> (revert r799085 for now, reapply if ever completed)
0
> [ ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
> (revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
> or rm ldap/ if not completed)
3 (minfrin, rederpj, rpluem)
> [ ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
> (do not revert r799085! rm ldap/ if not completed)
1 (wrowe)
> [ ] apr 2.0 should should drop ldap support completely
> (please rm ldap/ already)
0
>
> [ ] I don't care
0
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> [X] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
> (do not revert r799085! rm ldap/ if not completed)