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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
> >
> >
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
>-- 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
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,
10 matches
Mail list logo