Reviewing this code again, in my opinion this is a feature enhancement and it has no place in 2.3 which is feature-frozen.

Benoit Donnette wrote:

Hello,

I wanted to submit a shortish patch, basically backported from the 2.4 solution for issue 4623 to the 2.3 branch, tested on Linux and Solaris 9. I am not sure about the proper way to submit such a patch, any comment is therefore welcome.

Technically, it is just a backport of 2.4's fix for 4623. It has been tested on both Linux and Solaris 9.

Yours contributingly,

B. Donnette - LINAGORA - OSSA team www.linagora.com - www.08000linux.com

Matthew Backes wrote:

...

...

I wanted to submit a shortish patch, basically backported from the 2.4 solution for issue 4623 to the 2.3 branch, tested on Linux and Solaris 9. I am not sure about the proper way to submit such a patch, any comment is therefore welcome. Technically, it is just a backport of 2.4's fix for 4623. It has been tested on both Linux and Solaris 9.

...

Reviewing this code again, in my opinion this is a feature enhancement and it has no place in 2.3 which is feature-frozen.

Please reconsider; it is a feature enhancement, but it's one that matches the text of the docs And the original intent of the docs.

Finer granularity in the divisions between antique/stable/alpha code would be helpful both to potential contributors and users. Allowing some feature enhancements into 2.3 after each stable-point seems like a reasonably mild way to do this; stable-only users will sit tight until the stable tag is advanced (and probably quite a bit longer, arg), while many others will be interested in trying these features long before 2.4 is usable for their sites.

Well, ideally 2.4 would have been generally released by now. For the most part its code has been stable for the past several months anyway. Aside from a couple of minor issues, the biggest missing piece now is just the documentation.

But in the absence of a general 2.4 release, I guess it makes sense to do some more minor enhancements to 2.3. Kurt has also identified some password-control related enhancements to get into 2.3.

I've got no real problem with putting this code into 2.3 if there are no objections to unfreezing the release. The code obviously works, and there's no IPR issue with the submission since the code is all originally written by me.

Howard Chu wrote:

Matthew Backes wrote:

...

...

...

I wanted to submit a shortish patch, basically backported from the 2.4 solution for issue 4623 to the 2.3 branch, tested on Linux and Solaris 9. I am not sure about the proper way to submit such a patch, any comment is therefore welcome. Technically, it is just a backport of 2.4's fix for 4623. It has been tested on both Linux and Solaris 9.

...

Reviewing this code again, in my opinion this is a feature enhancement and it has no place in 2.3 which is feature-frozen.

Please reconsider; it is a feature enhancement, but it's one that matches the text of the docs And the original intent of the docs.

Finer granularity in the divisions between antique/stable/alpha code would be helpful both to potential contributors and users. Allowing some feature enhancements into 2.3 after each stable-point seems like a reasonably mild way to do this; stable-only users will sit tight until the stable tag is advanced (and probably quite a bit longer, arg), while many others will be interested in trying these features long before 2.4 is usable for their sites.

Well, ideally 2.4 would have been generally released by now. For the most part its code has been stable for the past several months anyway. Aside from a couple of minor issues, the biggest missing piece now is just the documentation.

Well, the TOC is there and anyone who feels the want to pick a section/subsection and contribute, please go ahead.

Gavin.

But in the absence of a general 2.4 release, I guess it makes sense to do some more minor enhancements to 2.3. Kurt has also identified some password-control related enhancements to get into 2.3.

I've got no real problem with putting this code into 2.3 if there are no objections to unfreezing the release. The code obviously works, and there's no IPR issue with the submission since the code is all originally written by me.