Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Jeff Anderson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> #2507 has been accepted, documented, and there is a working patch. It's >> been used in production for some time. >> >> In the spirit of resolving the "issue" (it is a ticket after all) I see >> two choices: 1) Merge it into Django. 2) close it as wontfix and host >> the code somewhere else. >> >> It was originally written by a co-worker of mine, and we'd be more than >> happy to tackle #2. I figured I'd run it by the dev list before I go and >> close the ticket on my own initiative. (It is marked as "accepted" after >> all.) >> > > Well - taking a quick look at the ticket, there are any number of > reasons that it hasn't progressed into trunk. It's a complete mess in > there. > > There is only one patch that I can see with documentation, and that > ticket is a single file, not a patch against the documentation tree, > and it isn't tied to any particular code patch. It also doesn't appear > to mention the external library dependency (ldap) and how to satisfy > it. > > I can't see any patch with a test case. Seriously folks - tests are > not optional. I don't even get out of bed without a test case. > > It isn't obvious which patch is the one to apply. There are 17 patches > with 7 authors. The most recent activity are all from different > authors, so it isn't obvious which set of fixes we should be accepting > into trunk (if you follow other tickets, the most recent patch isn't > always the most correct) > > Many of the patches all appear to be a single dropin file, not a patch > against trunk. > > To top it all off, the most recent comments on the ticket suggest that > the patch still has problems. > > An LDAP backend is certainly a reasonable suggestion; however, this > ticket isn't ready yet. To that end, it is correctly triaged - the > idea has been accepted, but the ticket is most definitely not ready > for checkin. Ready for checkin means "its ready for checkin". It > should be a 10 minute review activity for a core developer, not a 4 > hour bugfixing, testing and integration ordeal. > Alright, fair enough. :)
I'll see if I can't get some test cases in there-- any suggestions on how to accomplish this are welcome. Without an LDAP server to do these tests against, I'm really at a loss as to how to do this. Maybe we'll just need to say that the LDAP options need to be put into the settings module to be used for running the tests. I'll try to wrangle a lot of these changes, versions, etc., and make a patch against trunk sometime in the near future. Thanks for the feedback! Jeff Anderson
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
