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