Re: Backporting rlm_rest to 2.1.x

Hi,

Thanks Alan.  Pretty much the answer I was expecting but not the one I was hoping for. 3.0 is not mature enough for my requirements, especially as you say there are significant architectural changes.

how do you designate 'mature' software? old software can and does have bugs too - well used software might be 'mature' in way of updates/patches but then you have no features. we need more people to be running 3.0 so that we can find any other issues and maybe see a sooner release or 3.0.1 etc I've only running 3.0 HEAD on my test systems now - no longer looking at 2.1.x or 2.2.x updates - and it wont be long before it'll be just 3.x on production systems too. alan