On 02/21/2013 12:39 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 21.2.2013 10:06, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> On 19.2.2013 17:30, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>> I think dropping raw=True in patch 99.3 is going to break a check later
>>> where we look at the managedby attribute. Without raw this will be
>>> managedby_host.
>
On 21.2.2013 10:06, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 19.2.2013 17:30, Rob Crittenden wrote:
I think dropping raw=True in patch 99.3 is going to break a check later
where we look at the managedby attribute. Without raw this will be
managedby_host.
Fixed, thanks for the catch.
I have also made 2 changes
On 19.2.2013 17:30, Rob Crittenden wrote:
I think dropping raw=True in patch 99.3 is going to break a check later
where we look at the managedby attribute. Without raw this will be
managedby_host.
Fixed, thanks for the catch.
I have also made 2 changes to patch 100 (made sure the entry return
Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 02/06/2013 10:55 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 5.2.2013 15:45, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 02/05/2013 01:38 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 4.2.2013 15:49, Petr Viktorin wrote:
[...]
I see one of the changes is using has_key instead of `in` for a
CIDict.
Given that dict.has_key(
On 02/06/2013 10:55 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 5.2.2013 15:45, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 02/05/2013 01:38 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 4.2.2013 15:49, Petr Viktorin wrote:
[...]
I see one of the changes is using has_key instead of `in` for a CIDict.
Given that dict.has_key() is deprecated, I thi
On 5.2.2013 15:45, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 02/05/2013 01:38 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 4.2.2013 15:49, Petr Viktorin wrote:
[...]
I see one of the changes is using has_key instead of `in` for a CIDict.
Given that dict.has_key() is deprecated, I think a better solution would
be to add __contai
On 02/05/2013 01:38 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 4.2.2013 15:49, Petr Viktorin wrote:
[...]
I see one of the changes is using has_key instead of `in` for a CIDict.
Given that dict.has_key() is deprecated, I think a better solution would
be to add __contains__ to CIDict. Is there a reason against
On 4.2.2013 15:49, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 02/04/2013 02:25 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 1.2.2013 12:12, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:18 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Hi,
these patches implement attribute name case preservation in LDAPEntry.
Apply on top of Petr Viktorin's LDAP code refactor
On 02/04/2013 02:25 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 1.2.2013 12:12, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:18 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Hi,
these patches implement attribute name case preservation in LDAPEntry.
Apply on top of Petr Viktorin's LDAP code refactoring patchset (up to
part 5).
Honza
Pat
On 1.2.2013 12:12, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:18 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Hi,
these patches implement attribute name case preservation in LDAPEntry.
Apply on top of Petr Viktorin's LDAP code refactoring patchset (up to
part 5).
Honza
Patches 99 & 101 need some tests to make sure th
On 01/31/2013 04:18 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Hi,
these patches implement attribute name case preservation in LDAPEntry.
Apply on top of Petr Viktorin's LDAP code refactoring patchset (up to
part 5).
Honza
Patches 99 & 101 need some tests to make sure the _names work correctly.
Since you can c
Hi,
these patches implement attribute name case preservation in LDAPEntry.
Apply on top of Petr Viktorin's LDAP code refactoring patchset (up to
part 5).
Honza
--
Jan Cholasta
>From 8778f668591e28d78741df55dc2bca98917073e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Cholasta
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
