[Pdns-users] Status of the LDAP backend in 3.0 release

Nick Williams nicholas at nicholaswilliams.net
Fri Mar 25 14:40:32 UTC 2011

I wanted to quickly chime in on this. I agree with the decision to move the LDAP backend into "unmaintained" status and not fix these bugs right now. If there isn't a big enough community demand to supply the resources needed to maintain it, then there likely isn't a big enough demand to make it worthwhile anyway.

However, I do not think marking the bugs "will not fix" is the right move, as I believe there is a better alternative. Where I work, we have another status called "Deferred." When a bug is determined to be legitimate and needs to be fixed, but for some reason or another can't be fixed right now (e.g., not enough resources, requires major restructure somewhere that needs serious discussion, etc.), we mark it as "Deferred." This indicates later down the road that we had already decided to fix it, but couldn't at that time.

I think having a status similar to "Deferred" for PDNS bugs and putting these bugs in that status would be a better thing to do. A project this large can have a lot of "Won't Fix" bugs, and a year down the road it could be very hard to sort the "Can't fix" bugs out from the "Won't fix" bugs.

Thoughts everyone?


On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Nick Milas wrote:

> Sorry, the following was sent by mistake! Please ignore (the message is already in the list, sent by Udo Rader)!
> Nick
> On 24/3/2011 1:03 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
>> On 03/24/2011 11:36 AM, Nick Milas wrote:
>>> On 24/3/2011 10:11 πμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
>>>> what about a community donation?
>>>> we could create a ticket with all people interested in this feature
>>>> and how much can they contribute.
>>>> i think there's more people than we thing using LDAP backend.
>>> I like the idea. Such an announcement could be published to the ldap
>>> communities too.
>>> However, it strikes me that, although I have repeatedly published about
>>> the issue in this list, no one has expressed interest (you are the first
>>> one). Yet, I believe that there must be out there at least some
>>> people/organizations who use or would be interested in using the LDAP
>>> backend. (Googling for powerdns/ldap will reveal at least some activity
>>> in the recent or earlier past.)
>>> I find it a pity to put the LDAP backend (which I have mentioned in the
>>> past that is one of the virtues of powerdns vs other software) to
>>> unmaintained status.
>>> How can this be initiated? Has this be done in the past in the powerdns
>>> project?
>> Well, this entire thing might just be that no all people interested in
>> the LDAP backend are actively following the mailing list (like myself :-)
>> However, we are using the LDAP backend as well for our couple of
>> PowerDNS servers and would suffer much from dropping LDAP support.
>> On the other hand, I perfectly understand Bert's POV on the issue, so I
>> what I can offer is taking a look on the open issues and maybe - if time
>> allows - putting some manpower to it, but I will first have a look at
>> the issues myself.
>> Regards
>> Udo Rader
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pdns-users mailing list
>> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
>> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
> _______________________________________________
> Pdns-users mailing list
> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/attachments/20110325/4d5b6fd7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/attachments/20110325/4d5b6fd7/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the Pdns-users mailing list