Backporting rlm_rest to 2.1.x
A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk
Sat Aug 11 14:58:49 CEST 2012
> 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
More information about the Freeradius-Devel