I am in total agreement. +1 for putting it into experimental. I guess by saying "working on it" I do mean "maintaining it". Unless I missed it somewhere in the code, it seems that one of the pieces that got dropped on the floor when LDAP support was removed from APU was LDAP SSL. This needs to be put back into AUTH_LDAP and may need to be #ifdef'd by platform. So there is some work and definately some testing to be done. I would hate to see a good piece of code lay dormant.
Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:46:42 AM >>> Brad Nicholes wrote: > So it seems like we burned all of our bridges. We had somebody > working on it until we added it in. Then the author stopped so we took > it out. Now we not only don't have anybody working on it, we also don't > have it. I don't think it's a case of noone working on it (there have been some commits lately), I think it's a case of it not getting any exposure. People "out there" don't consider it part of httpd if it doesn't come in the httpd download. Also the concept of "working on it" needs clarification. If the thing works as it stands, then there is no reason to commit anything to it. However some people have translated "no commits to the code" as meaning "noone is maintaining it", which I believe is wrong. "Maintaining it" means that someone here is willing to respond to reported PRs, and to answer questions about it, and to review patches. From what I've seen there are a few people here who have shown their willingness to do it to date (in the form of emails answered and patches committed), so to all intents and purposes we can call the thing "maintained". > IMO, if we put it back at least in experimental, maybe we can > get developers working on it again (including the author). If it goes in experimental, then we can get it *tested*. The code came from a well established v1.3 module with a rich feature set. It was then modified to fit into Apache v2.0. There is no reason I can see why it shouldn't work as it stands, apart from bugs introduced by it being in a threaded environment where it wasn't before (some of which have already been found and fixed). I would argue that "experimental" would be the best place for it until it matures. > Since the code already exists and seems to > work, putting it into /experimental until it stabilizes seems like a > simple thing to do. No argument there. Regards, Graham -- ----------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight..."
