elrond at samba.org
Sat Jul 29 16:39:49 GMT 2000
Just as a note:
I don't know, if samba-patches contains any patches, that
are meant for TNG.
I don't want to waste my time, going through it, so if
someone finds one, please let me know.
Patches for TNG should be sent directly to me (or Luke).
Please try to make them so, that they can simply be applied
with gnu-patch and don't make them too big, so that they
can be read before applying.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:55:52AM +0200, Urban Widmark wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Neil Hoggarth wrote:
> > I don't know, but (speaking as an outsider who has tried to contribute
> > via samba-patches) it appears to have been just setup and left to
> > rot.
> > This may be an inaccurate impression. It is quite possible that someone
> > is reading the submissions and doing something with them, and it's not
> Browsing through a few shows that some have received replies, so all/most
> of them have probably been read. Some should have been moved out of
> incoming, at least one into accepted.
> > The samba(7) page distributed with v2.0.7 suggests that patches and bug
> > reports ought to be sent to the samba at samba.org list, rather than
> > mentioning samba-patches. If the samba-patches system isn't being used
> > and maintained then it seems to me that it ought to be killed off. I
> Yes, that is a conflict.
> Sending to samba-patches makes it hard for it to be lost (assuming someone
> goes through the backlog every now and then) while sending it to samba may
> make it disappear unseen by the right people into some archive.
> OTOH, sending it to samba exposes it to many more eyes. I doubt many
> outside the core team goes through samba-patches looking for interesting
> Maybe you are supposed to send it to both places?
> I have a pair of fixes for some minor smbmount things (no, not the
> "disconnect smbmount from the kernel sources patch", btw I am getting more
> support for that on linux-kernel in the "RLIM_INFINITY" thread as I write
> this) that I'm almost ready to send somewhere, but I'm not sure who wants
> samba-patches? samba? both? either?
More information about the samba-technical