Re: 2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active > development on two separate (but similar) trees. I don't want to > start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0. -- justin Why not do a tiny temporary branch just for t

Re: 2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread Brian Pane
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > >>No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are* >>people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3 >>tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn

Re: 2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are* > people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3 > tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to > happen. I see

Re: 2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread Aaron Bannert
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:43:33AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > I dislike backporting things. I think we all need to be on the 'same > version.' Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 ("it's not > portable"). If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for > anything other than

Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 10:09 AM 8/30/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > ... Now that it's GA, we should really be treating the 2.0 tree > > with the same respect and caution we use on the 1.3 tree. > > > > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with

2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas, guys. > If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant > way] > then they can be backported to 2.0. I dislike backporting thing

Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread rbb
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 01:48 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >Since no one had any feedback to the earlier posts about splitting > >the auth modules into authn/authz, I decided to just call it authn > >(old auth) and authz (what Dirk called access). > > > >

Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 01:48 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >Since no one had any feedback to the earlier posts about splitting >the auth modules into authn/authz, I decided to just call it authn >(old auth) and authz (what Dirk called access). > >http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/new-aaa/aaa-authn-authz-spl

Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread John K. Sterling
>-- Original Message -- >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:49:14 -0700 >From: Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: authn/authz split >Do you think this new feature is well-defined enough to warrant >a new revis

Re: authn/authz split

2002-08-30 Thread Aaron Bannert
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:48:39PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > I imagine auth may be a little wonky until this settles down, but > once it settles down, we can ensure we're backwards-compat with the > old aaa system. No one other than Aaron and myself seem interested > in calling this 2.1,