[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Some openldap fixes... (fwd) (fwd)
At 01:12 PM 9/19/00 +0200, Marijn Meijles wrote:
>BTW, how much entries do you consider fucking huge?
100M+. There are very implementations capable of handling
fucking huge directories. OpenLDAP isn't one of them.
The new backend I'm working on is targeted for large directories
(<10M entries per database).
>I have the feeling you don't quite understand our algorithm.
I'm think likewise. Reverse engineering an algorithm from a patch
and a bullet item isn't easy. Your latest post helps a great deal.
>Maybe it's an idea to create a patches page which is clearly visible (average
>users don't look in mailing list archives or ITSs) to present new stuff
>or contributed stuff which you don't want to put in the main tree.
I would suggest we continue use the ITS system as it provides us
with tracking... but maybe adjust our use to make patches more visible.
Maybe with a new "Patches" category to allow better hrefs to it
from other places.
However, I note, that the average user are not going to find patches
as they aren't going to look for them. They are going to try the
software as packaged and if they don't like it, they will whine on
the (wrong) list and someone will point them at a patch. Frankly,
visibility of patches is not the issue.
The issue is integration of useful changes (some of which might
not be useful to all) and providing of a distribution which has
reasonable defaults... and knobs for others. Integration of
generally much more work then making the change ever was. Provided
changes (in general) are often need much work to generalize,
provide knobs, and set reasonable defaults... and, of course,
porting to latest development sources. Simply put, we need help to
integrate changes. I'm very pleased that you are helping with