I wanted to quickly chime in on this. I agree with the decision to
move the LDAP backend into "unmaintained" status and not fix these
bugs right now. If there isn't a big enough community demand to supply
the resources needed to maintain it, then there likely isn't a big
enough demand to make it worthwhile anyway.
I feel I should repeat here Udo Rader's very thoughtful comment that:
"...(it) might just be that not all people interested in the LDAP
backend are actively following the mailing list"! In fact, it seems that
there are quite some people and organizations using it, and moving into
"unmaintained status" (I'll call it UMS) would be harmful to them.
However, since little interest has been explicitly exhibited, entering
UMS might ring a bell to some of the users/organizations to engage more
actively in its development (but it could push them to entirely drop
LDAP backend too!). But, of course, there is also Udo's offer to
possibly "offer some manpower", and, hopefully, LDAP backend might avoid
entering UMS after all (I hope we will hear some news from him some time
soon, after "having a look at the issues") by catching up with v3.0. :-)
*However*, I do not think marking the bugs "will not fix" is the right
move, as I believe there is a better alternative. Where I work, we
have another status called "Deferred." When a bug is determined to be
legitimate and needs to be fixed, but for some reason or another can't
be fixed right now (e.g., not enough resources, requires major
restructure somewhere that needs serious discussion, etc.), we mark it
as "Deferred." This indicates later down the road that we had already
decided to fix it, but couldn't at that time.
I think having a status similar to "Deferred" for PDNS bugs and
putting these bugs in that status would be a better thing to do. A
project this large can have a lot of "Won't Fix" bugs, and a year down
the road it could be very hard to sort the "Can't fix" bugs out from
the "Won't fix" bugs.
This might be a useful policy; filtering tickets by "Deferred" status
sounds efficient and helpful (if developers concerned agree too!). On
the negative side, the existence of a "Deferred" status might
(psychologically) encourage a more frequent "defer" of issues. :-(
Nick
_______________________________________________
Pdns-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
