You are fast! :) On 18. mars 2010, at 20.40, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> Here is the code: > > http://reviewboard.liftweb.net/r/211/diff/1/ > > Looks pretty straight-forward. > > we still need an ldap to use a test: ldap.bigfoot.com:389 seens like a good > choice > > http://raleigh.pm.org/ldap-talk.html > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I have tried to follow that discussion as best I could too. >> If we start to use it, it might also speed things up a bit. There is >> nothing better for a developer than seeing his work being implemented and >> used :-) >> >> - anne >> >> >> On 18. mars 2010, at 19.24, Richard Hirsch wrote: >> >>> Based on what I've seen on the lift mailing list, the LDAP support in >> lift >>> is still in its early stages but it should still provide an excellent >> start >>> for us. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't really have an opinion about LDAP aside from thinking that we >>>> need it. I definitely support this approach. >>>> >>>> Ethan >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected] >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Let's say that the UI + LDAP + bug fixes are the focus for the next >>>> release. >>>>> Everything else goes into the backlog. >>>>> >>>>> D. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18. mars 2010, at 14.21, Ethan Jewett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we should really limit our focus for Jira items that are in >>>>>>> releases. When a JIRA item is included in a release (rather than the >>>>>>> backlog), I take that to mean that we will not release until that >> item >>>>>>> is addressed. If we will release without an item being addressed, I >>>>>>> think it should stay in the backlog, or be scheduled for a different >>>>>>> (future) release. Is that how others understand it? Maybe not :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> For the next .point releases I think it is good if we didn't take too >>>> much >>>>>> water over our heads. >>>>>> >>>>>>> With that understanding, I think we need to decide if the UI or LDAP >>>>>>> support is higher priority (or if they are equal). If LDAP is as >>>>>>> important as the UI, let's put it in the 1.1 release. If it's not, >>>>>>> let's move it to the backlog or to a 1.2 release (and put off moving >>>>>>> to Lift 2.0 until that point). >>>>>> >>>>>> LDAP support is important. >>>>>> I know we missed a few opportunities last year because we didn't >> support >>>>>> it, so I would like to keep it in release 1.1 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ethan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> I just noticed that "Add LDAP to ESME" is a Jira task tagged for the >>>> 1.1 >>>>>> release. >>>>>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-135) >>>>>>>> Then I would say yes let's use the Lift 2.0 snapshot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18. mars 2010, at 05.03, Richard Hirsch wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 with UI >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which release do you refer to as next? >>>>>>>>>> If RC2 I'd say no. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - anne >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 17. mars 2010, at 13.22, Richard Hirsch wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we want to use the 2.0 snapshot for the next release? We would >>>> get >>>>>>>>>> LDAP >>>>>>>>>>> support which is now part of the current snapshot? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe someone can try it out in a branch.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Last time I checked, there were breaking changes... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
