define LDAP_SYNC_REFRESH_REQUIRED 0x1000

I do not understand th ereason for this request. why should anbody care how a ds plugin names its constants ?

that was for "consistency" with OpenLDAP clients definitions, just cosmetic

Per weekly meeting:

We should close this as invalid (though the doc should change if it doesn't match the define).

Should we open a doc bug?

389-ds-base is moving from Pagure to Github. This means that new issues and pull requests
will be accepted only in 389-ds-base's github repository.

This issue has been cloned to Github and is available here:
- https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/2117

If you want to receive further updates on the issue, please navigate to the github issue
and click on subscribe button.

Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.