| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
lo, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 19:51, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 7 |
> I just had somebody ask me about whether or not we still needed LDAP |
| 8 |
> help. It's a good question, and I didn't know the answer, which is |
| 9 |
> rather embarrassing since I'm the one who filed the LDAP staffing |
| 10 |
> request. Since then I believe that lcars had taken LDAP over |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
nope, lcars is not on the ldap team, though he was doing some dox. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> , or is |
| 15 |
> otherwise assisting robbat2 (or the LDAP team, if we have one now). In |
| 16 |
> any event, I doubt that I'm the only irresponsible dev who's added an |
| 17 |
> entry to the staffing-needs page and forgot about it, so perhaps we |
| 18 |
> need to have items expire unless explicitly renewed? Thoughts? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'd say ldap is fine right now. I think we've got most of the big issues |
| 21 |
out of the way and I'm happy to update whatever documentation people |
| 22 |
think needs updating if someone would point me at the current versions. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> PS. Does anybody know if we do still need people to help w/ LDAP? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'd say we're fine now. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- -- |
| 29 |
Benjamin Smee (strerror) |
| 30 |
crypto/forensics/netmail/netmon/ldap |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v1.9.20 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iD8DBQFEWcdHAEpm7USL54wRAoqvAJ9SHNacD3bT1FRp0jErr9f3pPNaoQCdG57P |
| 35 |
14y2Cq0wQf+QX3qunz0DqjQ= |
| 36 |
=QEWk |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives