--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2008-04-22 at 11:08 +0200 Volker Lendecke sent off:
> Second case: The user has an explicit "ldap timeout" set. In
> this case, that user has apparently had some reason to do
> so. In this case, I would like both new parameters to
> default to what the user explicitly set, because having that
> explicit parameter was a conscious decision. We should mark
> "ldap timeout" as deprecated then, pointing out the new
> parameters in the documentation.


if you really want you can do that. But to me this looks too complex=20
to do for what it's worth. Leaving "ldap timeout" as deprecated and=20
use it for both new ldap timeout parameters - but what should be done=20
if the new parameters are also set? Is the "ldap timeout" overwriting=20
the "ldap operation/connection timeout" timeout or vice versa? There=20
are so many changes in smb.conf configuration in minor releases that=20
require smb.conf adjustment. Compared to other changes this is really=20
a small change and just fine for a 3.2 release I think.

Cheers
Bj=F6rn

--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgNrsAACgkQdoo0s+hIejn1swCg08wsyzv1qo Z5UsbuxmnfwxFU
V7EAnjpbhOmRWfEv2zXXi1ilUVjDI8TC
=BOLc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa--