Hi, On Saturday, 11. May 2013, Doug Wegscheid wrote: > Thanks for your time. The lack of response to "purity vs real-world > usability" is disappointing.
I am sorry you see it that way, but my reason was not only "purity" as you call it, but long term usability & compatibility. Your patch would have scratched your itch, but the burden to keep perl-ldap maintainable, understandable & compatible [even for that RFC violation of your tool] would be on the maintainer(s). What if another patch came in asking for another RFC violation that would negatively impact your patch? Which one should then prevail? Did you at least report the bug to IBM? Because their non-standards compliant tool is the cause of the whole discussion. Best Peter -- Peter Marschall pe...@adpm.de
