openldap-devel

openldap-devel@openldap.org

1418 discussions

CVS... should it stay or should it go now?
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

One of the things we did not migrate over from Gauss was the old CVS repository. However, there are references in the old -software archives (and possibly -technical as well), and existing bug reports, such as <https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=831#c6> which have links that will no longer work without the old CVS repository being present, although all of these changes of course do exist in the git repo, just with git change IDs. Is there anyone who feels it is worthwhile to preserve the old CVS repository so that these references can still be examined directly w/o having to parse through the git history to find them? If so, we can certainly restore the CVS repo on the new system. Regards, Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

2 1

archiving test
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

just an archiving test, ignore :P -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 0

Two log lines for SRCH parameters?
by Michael Ströder 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

HI! I'm wondering why there are two log lines for listing the search parameters for a single search operation: SRCH base="dc=ae-dir,dc=example,dc=org" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(objectClass=aePerson)" SRCH attr=cn givenName sn mail aeStatus Is there any rationale for that? Wouldn't it be better to also list attr= along with the other search parameters? The attributes could also be listed as comma-separated list, so parsing with space as separator would be easy. I'm asking for a rather *small* change. I deliberately do not want to start a let's-fix-all-the-log-issues discussion. Ciao, Michael.

3 3

Suggested minor change: LMDB FNV hash code license
by Dan Shearer 07 Feb '20

07 Feb '20

Hello all, In using liblmdb in LumoSQL, we noticed that the FNV code in mdb.c has a non-binding license comment that doesn't match the way it is used in lmdb: "please do not copyright this code. This code is in the public domain." followed by a typical public domain disclaimer. I asked Landon Curt Noll, the author of this code, who proposed this alternative: Title: FNV Hash Author: Landon Curt Noll - http://www.isthe.com/chongo/ Source: http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv License: CC BY 4.0 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. NOTE: This code was changed to use the 'CC BY 4.0' license by permission of the author. Would the project accept a patch that makes this change? Thanks, -- Dan Shearer dan(a)shearer.org

2 1

get rid of -releng suffix
by Michael Ströder 05 Feb '20

05 Feb '20

HI! Is the releng suffix for the shared libs still needed? It made sense in former times. But given automatic testing in VMs, containers, CI/CD delivery pipelines it just adds this small extra complexity without any benefit. I suggest to drop it for 2.5.x. Opinions? Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: RE25 branch testing
by Gavin Henry 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

Will have a shot! On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, 00:07 Quanah Gibson-Mount, <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, it's very clear that zero people have been using/testing > the > RE25 code branch, as it was completely unusable until today (wouldn't even > compile). > > I have gotten it now to the point where it both compiles and passes make > test, although my tests do not include any SSL libraries at the moment. > > If anyone on the list could compile, test, and deploy (in a non-production > environment) RE25, that would be great. I'm working on updating the > announcement file with the numerous new features available. Once that's > complete, I'll start looking at getting an alpha tarball together. > > It would also be extremely helpful if there were people who could help > write up documentation as necessary (particularly for the admin guide) on > the new features (or heck, even the numerous unfinished pages for existing > features :( ). > > Thanks, > Quanah > > > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> > >

1 0

RE25 branch testing
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

Unfortunately, it's very clear that zero people have been using/testing the RE25 code branch, as it was completely unusable until today (wouldn't even compile). I have gotten it now to the point where it both compiles and passes make test, although my tests do not include any SSL libraries at the moment. If anyone on the list could compile, test, and deploy (in a non-production environment) RE25, that would be great. I'm working on updating the announcement file with the numerous new features available. Once that's complete, I'll start looking at getting an alpha tarball together. It would also be extremely helpful if there were people who could help write up documentation as necessary (particularly for the admin guide) on the new features (or heck, even the numerous unfinished pages for existing features :( ). Thanks, Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 0

New release policy for OpenLDAP
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 29 Jan '20

29 Jan '20

There's been ongoing discussion about making changes to the current release strategy with OpenLDAP. Traditionally we've (for the most part) kept new features out of the release branch and did our best to primarily focus on bug fixes only. There have clearly been exceptions when warranted (such as support for LMDB, etc). However, this policy has had the effect of keeping significant improvements from being made readily available to end users of the software. To address this, we're looking at implementing the following: Starting with OpenLDAP 2.5, the OpenLDAP project will use a new release process. Odd numbered releases will contain only bug fixes Even numbered releases will allow for minor new features This will allow for end users who want stability to focus on odd numbered releases while allowing those who need/want newer features to be able to make use of them. Constructive responses to the new release strategy welcome. Regards, Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

7 16

Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP
by Hugh McMaster 28 Jan '20

28 Jan '20

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 05:46, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > But my point was, I think it’s a fallacy to tie software quality and > frequency of releases. I encounter way too much software today that > releases frequently, but what it releases is poorly (or not at all) QA'd, > etc. And it's a nightmare to deal with. I'd rather they slowed down and > got their software in better shape than constantly release, well, crap. No-one was suggesting a two-week release cycle (e.g. Wine) or three major releases a year (e.g. ICU). But there comes a point where simply releasing bug fixes (although very important for stability) for many years at a time delays the release of important other work. That’s what Howard wants to address with this change. Out of interest, what frequency of minor and patch release do believe is appropriate for this project? Hugh

1 0

Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP
by Gavin Henry 24 Jan '20

24 Jan '20

> Odd numbered releases will contain only bug fixes > Even numbered releases will allow for minor new features > > This will allow for end users who want stability to focus on odd numbered > releases while allowing those who need/want newer features to be able to > make use of them. > > Constructive responses to the new release strategy welcome. > Sounds good! Although odd numbers seems to feel like something risky, i.e. a new feature, whereas even numbers feel nice and comfy, boring and just bug fixes. Maybe just me! Gavin. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry.

1 1

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
142
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel