On 7/6/2011 6:07 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: > > I have vetoed the mess you've just referred to, and I expect wrowe to revert > this change > as per this project's rules.
Per the project rules, you have failed to offer a valid technical justification for your veto. It represents an opinion. Right now, I have a much technical justification than you, due to the fact that updating apr-util and replacing the ldap library consumed by apr-util breaks an installed mod_ldap, violating binary compatibility guidelines. > If this is still not done by the end of the week I will make plans to do so > myself, > however I am currently arranging a wedding, and that comes first right now. Do not unilaterally revert. Doing so based on an unsubstantiated veto jeopardizes your commit privileges. Speaking for a moment as project chair, I will not permit svn to be abused with commit wars. I have put this to a [vote] as you had not done so, since you desire some path to change the current direction. Others at this list have expressed an interest in working with the current state of trunk. I've just completed a rather intensive project and can again dedicate cycles to further testing and improving the status quo for 2.3 beta. I do know that things built on linux and win32 when I had last looked, but that was only with wldap32.dll and openldap tests. As we fix one thing, it is altogether possible that we break something else, and I'm happy to help clean up today. Complete refactoring at httpd would permit us to build mod_ldap_openldap alongside other library options, something apr_util cannot provide.
