SYSKEY, TNG freeze, 2.0.x->TNG merge and other thoughts

[John Koyle]

Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> >  - SYSKEY
> >
> >    I'm now for it as Luke's LDAP/NIS/other name services argument is a
> >    winning one. The /etc/shadow approach should still be supported and
> >    used where no such cleartext protocols are in use.
> 
> Everyone has a point of view :)
> 
> >  - TNG code freeze
> >
> >    Don't do it yet; wait a few more weeks. So much progress is taking
> >    place that it seems worthwhile to wait a bit longer.
> 
> NO. freeze Now ! I know Luke well enough to say that if you leave him just
> a week, he will have a new idea he'll want to code. Of course if you have
> spent more than an afternoon on his roof then you know him better than I
> :-)


FREEZE!

I agree, I've spent about the last 2 weeks just trying to get TNG setup
and working
properly against an LDAP backend.  I've done so many cvs updates my head
is spinning.
Code compiles then doesn't, etc. Finally, I got it working but not after
the
decision was made to hold off awhile (I know it is enterprise ready, but
we're still
a small shop that could deal alpha code).  In the meantime I'll be
cursed with NT2000
until TNG becomes more reliable/stable.  This does mean that I'll get to
test any
2000/TNG items you'd like, or that I won't keep working/hacking with it.
;-)  

The point is new people like myself (to TNG) would very much like to
test/debug TNG, 
and it's nearly impossible to do that when there are 30 cvs updates per
day.  If it
began to stablize people (like myself again, Lars, etc.) could generate
FAQ's that 
are a little more useful since things aren't so dynamic.

On a side note, the ldap search scope should be a configuration option,
rather than
hard-coded in ldap.c.  For a small organization like ours with a single
PDC, I still
have my directory divided into ou's.

John