TNG-stable

[Jean Francois Micouleau]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> the samba code is complex, and it takes time to encourage people to get
> involved, up-to-speed, to identify possibly psychologically intimidating
> barriers with a project of this size etc.

I disagree Luke, the code is not so complex. It's even clearer and
clearer. I've been involved in project where the code is much more complex
to understand.

> you, matty, elrond and sander are some of the successes i have had, with
> some needing less encouragement and more opportunity: i think you and
> matty just _got_ it, from the word go :)
> 
> one of the goals of the daemon architecture is [was] to reduce the
> perceived size of the entire project into smaller, self-contained
> sub-projects that other people could be encouraged to develop, enjoy and
> maintain with pride [hey, look, i wrote my own samrd and it's really
> beefily cool and integrates with...]

Luke even before day 1 you coded the daemon architecture, you have been
told the way you wanted to do it was wrong. Remember, we spent a whole
afternoon drafting that part at CB1 2 years ago. Andrew, Jeremy and I told
you we don't want the daemon architecture like you've done it because it
doesn't scale. 

At least stop spreading that we left you working alone on TNG and that we
refused everything from you. We adviced you while you were prototyping
code to ease the integration in HEAD, I've asked you numerous times to
send us by-fonctionnality diffs of the code to integrate in HEAD. I have
never received anything.

Even when I asked you what you did in TNG to support W2K, you simply reply
"some change on netlogon and lsa". Well, I'm currently respending as much
of my time as you spend yours to know exactly what we are missing in HEAD.

We all have made mistake in this story including YOU. Period. End of this
thread.


	J.F.