--On Monday, March 23, 2020 6:03 PM -0700 Ryan Tandy wrote:
I'd go further and propose simply deleting back-ndb. Do we know of anyone
using it?
It's not usable, so no. ;) There's one ITS around it from someone who made
the mistake of attempting to use it.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mo
This is fantastic, and I really appreciate you doing the work. Having
everything categorized and milestoned is a major improvement.
I'm a fan of smaller and more frequent releases in general so I'm happy
to hear that suggestion. Gets changes out to users sooner, but also
reduces the urge to de
I'd go further and propose simply deleting back-ndb. Do we know of
anyone using it?
+1 to making back-sql master only.
The back-ndb backend has never been finished, and relies on partnership
with a corporation that has no desire to continue the work since it
acquired the original entity involved.
I would suggest then that it be removed from the 2.5 release tree and left
master only.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibs
One thing that came up repeatedly in going through the ITS system is issues
with back-sql (A quick count gives me 23). Given that this backend has
always been marked experimental and has numerous bugs, I would suggest that
unless someone steps up who is willing to support it that it be removed
I've gone through and looked at all of the open issues that were in the
OpenLDAP product queue. The end result of this is that numerous duplicate
issues, invalid issues, and issues where we never got any response after
asking for more information have been closed out appropriately.
As a part
