Patch list for getting the v3-2-test and v3-2-stable back in sync

[Michael Adam]

Hi Jerry, Karolin, list...

Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> Karolin Seeger wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:49:04PM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> >> I've gone through and created a set of proposed patches
> >> that will bring the v3-2- -test and -stable trees back in
> >> line with each other.  At http://www.samba.org/~jerry/v3-2-patches
> > 
> > thank you very much! :-) 
> ...
> >  
> > There are some patches at the merge list which I would 
> > like to see on the revert list instead. We decided to
> > pick only bug fixes, segfaults and regressions for
> > 3.2.0rc1 and on the list are e.g. raised debug levels,
> > fixed typos and things like that. Here is a list of 
> > patches I would like to revert in v3-2-test instead
> > of merging them to v3-2-stable:
> > 
> > -0004-Remove-hard-coded-sizes.patch
> > -0007-Add-in-a-nice-big-comment-explaining-why-SamLogonEx.patch
> > -0011-Fix-some-ignoring-asprintf-result-warnings.patch
> > -0013-increase-log-level-for-this-failed-setsockopt-call.patch
> > -0015-fix-some-extrasemi-compile-warnings.patch
> > -0017-errors-add-WERR_INVALID_DOMAINNAME.patch (?)
> > -0018-vfs_cacheprime-fix-C-warning-make-implicit-cast.patch
> > -0020-rpc_parse-fix-assignment-discards-qualifier-warni.patch
> > -0023-Remove-two-pointless-else-branches.patch
> > -0025-Fix-typo.patch
> > -0026-loadparm-reformat-fix-whitespace-tab.patch
> > -0027-Strip-whitespace-in-ntsvcs-rpc-server.patch
> > -0028-init_srv_share_info_ctr-Add-debug-messages.patch
> > -0029-Fix-an-uninitialized-variable-warning.patch
> > -0036-rpcclient-Add-getdispinfoidx-command.patch
> > -0037-rpcclient-Add-tiny-fix-for-cmd_samr_get_dispinfo_id.patch
> > -0038-srv_winreg-add-a-debug-message-to-_winreg_CreateKey.patch
> > -0040-configure-fix-a-comment-typo.patch
> > -0041-docs-fix-indentation-in-expand-smbxonfdoc.patch
> > -0043-Fix-a-nested-extern-declaration-warning.patch
> > 
> > Do you agree?
> 
> Hey Karalinn,
> 
> My reasoning for including these (after a brief read
> over the patch $UBJECT line) is that I expect we would
> probably take them for 3.2.1.  So if we revert them now,
> we'll just have to re-add them later.  I believe all are
> low risk, but the actual patch authors should comment.

I think that it is better to revert these now.
Re-adding some of these for bugfix releases later
would not be much of a problem.

Some innocuous compile warning fixes might not even
make it for any bugfid 3.2.X release.

I had intentionally not submitted the patches by my for picking
to 3-2-stable because i thought them not important enough.
But that was before v3-3-test was branched, so actually
that would only have gone into v3-3 and should be reverted.

I think we should stick our set must-have-criteria now.

Just my 2 ¢

Cheers - Michael

> I realize they don't meet the must-have-criteria we
> agreed on but with the late branch, we just have to figure
> out the best way to bring -stable and -test back in line.
> 
> Not that I have not done integration testing with that
> complete patch list to -stable.  Only a compile test I
> believe.

-- 
Michael Adam <ma at sernet.de>
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.SerNet.DE, mailto: Info @ SerNet.DE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080505/576a5e9c/attachment.bin