As I replied to the quesiton I posted above...
We might be able to provide secured internet facing LDAP services and
support for troublshooting on the server side in support of the
development
effort... I will review the .ORG notes & hopefully figure out who to
contact.
Thanks
Todd Grayson
Sr. Architect, Systems Engieering
Navidec, Inc.
John Marmion wrote:
> Candice,
>
> We are very anxious to begin and learn the process of putting
> back to Mozilla. After our discussion last week on the IRC, I
> want to suggest the following and ask for your input.
>
> As I said then, we want to ensure two things:
>
> 1. We do not break the build
> 2. We not break any existing functionality
>
> After that:
>
> 3. we want to add LDAP access to the Address Book.
>
> Rather than waiting to put this all back at once. I wish to
> propose that we attempt to put back the re-factored code only
> at first i.e. with no added functionality. This would address
> (1) and (2) above.
>
> This would serve a number of issues. It would ensure that
> we have in place in the tree a hook to hang our new
> added functionality and would also help us to appreciate
> the process. It would also aid in people having confidence
> in our proposed changes.
>
> We would put this code back against LDAP BUG 36557. This initial
> putback would not fix this but would pave the way for a later fix.
> Our timescale for this first putback is within the next 1-2 weeks.
>
> We would wish to aid this process in whatever way that we can.
>
> We will be putting these changes against Mozilla 0.8 very shortly.
>
> We will build this on Linux and Win32 and can make both the code
> and the binaries available for anybody who wishes to see and use
> it. We can provide the code as is and as diffs against the existing
> code.
>
> We would probaly need help in building on the MAC. But we can put an
> appeal out on the newsgroups for people to help us with this.
>
> Can we involve the Mail/AddressBook QA team in this process. How
> do we go about informing them.
>
> Do any manual/automated tests exist for us to ensure that we have
> not broken any functionality.
>
> Can you suggest anything else we should be doing?
>
> John M.
