1:52 a.m.
I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or wiping out
this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737.
Comments?
p.
11:23 a.m.
masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote:
I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or
wiping out
this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737.
Comments?
At this point I'm OK with anything that makes this ITS go away.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
1:01 a.m.
masarati(a)aero.polimi.it writes:
I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or
wiping out
this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737.
Comments?
OK, here's a comment:
"If the slapmodify patch couldn't make do with the ldif patch as
written, this suggests the ldif patch was insufficiently general."
Of course, it'd help if I looked at the patches before saying that:)
--
Hallvard
1:07 a.m.
masarati(a)aero.polimi.it writes:
> I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or wiping
> out
> this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737.
> Comments?
OK, here's a comment:
"If the slapmodify patch couldn't make do with the ldif patch as
written, this suggests the ldif patch was insufficiently general."
Of course, it'd help if I looked at the patches before saying that:)
I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. But I realize my message
was not entirely clear. The two patches conflict from a diff -u point of
view, as they overlap a bit. In order to preserve them as distinct
commits, I need to temporarily back out the slapmodify patch in
slapcommon.h, commit ITS#6645, put back slapmodify patch with minimal
manual intervention, and commit ITS#6737. Or, I can remove the ITS#6645
patch and simply commit the ITS#6737 one. There's no operational
incompatibility between the patches as they touch completely orthogonal
aspects of tool operations.
p.
8:53 a.m.
Howard Chu wrote:
masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote:
> I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or wiping out
> this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737.
> Comments?
At this point I'm OK with anything that makes this ITS go away.
PS: Might as well add the feature to ldapsearch too, and close ITS#6149 and
any others.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
11:23 a.m.
Howard Chu wrote:
> masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote:
>> I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or wiping
>> out
>> this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737.
>> Comments?
>
> At this point I'm OK with anything that makes this ITS go away.
>
PS: Might as well add the feature to ldapsearch too, and close ITS#6149
and
any others.
Fine; what option do you suggest? perhaps -L with an argument indicating
columns number; I vaguely remember that optional values are a GNU
extension, though.
p.
4462
days inactive
4488
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Hallvard B Furuseth -
Howard Chu -
masarati＠aero.polimi.it