22 Apr
2005
22 Apr
'05
3:15 p.m.
Juha,
indeed rel_0_9_0 is and will stay frozen if we ever what to have a
release. Rules state clear that once frozen, no commits are allowed
excepting fixes.
What you miss here - or I haven't made it clear enough - is that the
auth* commit doesn't backport any new features, improvements, etc, but
backports a *cleanup* of these modules, cleanup which fixes a lot of
inconsistencies - which in my opinion goes into fixing area.
If this cause you any inconveniences, I'm really sorry, but our major
concern now must be to get a new SER release as best as possible.
bogdan
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Martin Koenig writes:
I, from a user's point of view, am against
the reversal of this
backport. I like the functionality in 0_9_0 alot and think it is very
useful. However, Juha's point regarding performance remains valid.
there are lots of things i like in unstable branch and which i would
like to get officially committed to rel_0_9_0, but haven't proposed or
done any, because i thought that as advertized, rel_0_9_0 is a frozen
branch, where only bug fixes were allowed to be committed.
if the rules have changed, perhaps i'm allowed to commit lcr module, for
example, to rel_0_9_0? either we re-open the branch or we don't.
the auth rpid changes that were committed yesterday, will force me to
change in MANY rel_0_9_0 proxies the way radius returns caller rpid,
i.e., the chance is not backwards compatible.
is there anyone in charge here?
-- juha