Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0347] Fix CI tests domain_level ENV config

ACK. - Original Message - > From: "Martin Basti" > To: "freeipa-devel" > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:39:00 PM > Subject: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0347] Fix CI tests domain_level ENV config > > Patch attached. > > Following test should

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0348] CI: fix KRA installation with domain level>0

ACK. - Original Message - > From: "Martin Basti" > To: "freeipa-devel" > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:06:51 PM > Subject: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0348] CI: fix KRA installation with domain > level>0 > > Patch attached. > Part of

[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0348] CI: fix KRA installation with domain level>0

Patch attached. Part of https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5379 Martin^2 From 85124720de8fefbf4f777c76af07b96e586a48cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Basti Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:58:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] CI test: Fix installation of KRA on a replica With

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [Update]Time-Based Account Policies

On 16/11/15 13:20, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Simo Sorce wrote: On 16/11/15 06:02, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote: ... And in general I am opposed to have

[Freeipa-devel] How does this code work? (performance)

How does this code work (IMO it doesn't), ldap2.py def find_entries(self, filter=None, attrs_list=None, base_dn=None, scope=_ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, time_limit=None, size_limit=None, search_refs=False, paged_search=False): def _get_limits():

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [Update]Time-Based Account Policies

On 16/11/15 06:02, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote: ... And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that is

Re: [Freeipa-devel] Caching ldap limits for whole connection (performance)

On 16.11.2015 18:57, Martin Basti wrote: How does this code work (IMO it doesn't), ldap2.py def find_entries(self, filter=None, attrs_list=None, base_dn=None, scope=_ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, time_limit=None, size_limit=None, search_refs=False,

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [Update]Time-Based Account Policies

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Simo Sorce wrote: On 16/11/15 06:02, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote: ... And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance grounds

Re: [Freeipa-devel] Caching ldap limits for whole connection (performance)

Martin Basti wrote: On 16.11.2015 18:57, Martin Basti wrote: How does this code work (IMO it doesn't), ldap2.py def find_entries(self, filter=None, attrs_list=None, base_dn=None, scope=_ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, time_limit=None, size_limit=None,

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [Update]Time-Based Account Policies

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote: ... And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [Update]Time-Based Account Policies

On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote: ... And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that is becomes tricky to keep objects in sync. What exactly is the performance issue there? To

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [Update]Time-Based Account Policies

On 11/16/2015 10:32 AM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 11/13/2015 04:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On 13/11/15 10:17, Martin Basti wrote: ... And in general I am opposed to have a separate object on performance grounds (for clients) and also on the fact that is becomes tricky to keep objects in sync.