TODO list proposal for volunteers
T.D.Lee at durham.ac.uk
Fri Sep 29 15:58:43 GMT 2000
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Gerald Carter wrote:
> Coding Projects
> All coding work needs to be coordinated with Jeremy
> and Andrew at the very least on samba-technical.
> Don't just start coding and expect patches to
> automatically be integrated in. Obviously. projects
> by specific team members, winbind for example, need
> to be coordinated with those team members in charge.
> For those without CVS write access (non-team members),
> patches should be incremental and in the form of
> context diffs.
Is that right? Nice in theory, but in practice...?
I assembled a post-2.0.7 patch for utmp back in May. This was made
against a production 2.0.7 baseline.
But I had a note from Jeremy saying he just tried to put it into 2_2,
and that it doesn't work, and could I re-do it etc. etc.
Yes, I'm very willing to try to cooperate. But surely the "team" (those
maintaining the CVS tree) should try to ensure that a patch against the
most recent production version should be valid.
(I've tried checking this twice with Jeremy, but no answer...)
1. (Principle) Have I misunderstood the principle? Could a team member
confirm that patches against the most recent production version are
2. (For my umtp patch) Could a team member indicate whether 2_2 was
branched off before 2.0.7 was finally released? I can easily supply
the patch if you wish to try to apply it (and/or to demonstrate that
the problem lies at my end).
If someone's patch fails to apply to the current production release then
there is a reasonable expectation for them to fix their patch. But if it
does apply cleanly, who is responsible for reconciling it with the
emerging next release?
: David Lee I.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer Computer Centre :
: University of Durham :
: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dcl0tdl South Road :
: Durham :
: Phone: +44 191 374 2882 U.K. :
More information about the samba-technical