SYSKEY, TNG freeze, 2.0.x->TNG merge and other thoughts

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at samba.org
Wed Feb 9 19:06:34 GMT 2000


On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 100 jeremy at varesearch.com wrote:
> 
> > > code in 2.0.x is much more reliable than the TNG code (not
> > > the actual server/client functions though).
> > 
> > just because it's been running in production for two yeasrs doesn't mimply
> > that uit's good code or does the correct job.
> 
> We're talking about different things. With Jeremy we're talking about the
> prs_struct itself and the prs_init(), prs_grow(), prs_whatever()
> functions. Jeremy rewrote them a year ago, between 2.0.0 and 2.0.2

and as a result, and to add more functionality, i rewrote it myself, too.
 
> And these are much better than in TNG. Or at least they don't LEAK MEMORY
> like in TNG. Comprendo ?

oh dear.  more memory leaks?  *sigh*.  gonna have to fix that.
 
> > because i certainly don't trust any of the [very limited, small, alpha,
> > first-version, development-quality] 2_0 rpc code -- server, marshalling
> > _or_ client.
> 
> I can't stand that any more. You're totally over-exagerating. The diff is

no i'm not.

> not so big. It's a fact, I MADE MYSELF THE DIFF. 

yes, so did i.  a diff of rpc_server/*.c against 2_0 from the time it
was created up till now is 8,000 lines long.  i reviewed it.



More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list