CVS update: tng/source/passdb

Elrond elrond at
Wed Jan 9 11:12:19 GMT 2002

Just as a note in the beginning:

Don't take this personally. You're just describing
something, and it got me to finally write something.

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 07:59:56AM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> As to the comments on better structure - I have certainly found this. 
> Much of what I have been doing over in HEAD has been implementing in my
> own way - and within the HEAD constraints - many of the same ideas. 

Yeah, I saw some nice ideas by you and implemented them
partly in TNG too.

> Whenever I'm wondering about possible future designs I look at TNG.

(as noted above, don't take this personnaly, to be correct,
I don't remember seeing your name in below mentioned

Yeah. head people seem to often look at our code.

When I was subscribed to samba-cvs, I saw now and than
commits, that related to TNG. But there is a BUT. But that
comes below.

When I looked at them, I thought, "Hey, that looks like
something I did half a year ago, let's see, how they did

cvs update

After analyzing the whole thing (including the commit
message), it come down to:

40% stolen idea from TNG
50% stolen code
    (I know *my* code very well, even if I commited it long
    ago. I can spot its style in other sources and the
10% new "crap"
0%  credit
0%  other outcome/feedback to TNG or me

I think, I've even tried to contact the commiter and asked
him about credits.
I don't remember getting a response.

You might imagine, that this and some other things don't
make people happy.
(I'm not going to mention, what "other things" is. I don't
want to let this whole stuff escalate even more. Also I've
probably done enough to let it escalate.)

I've finally unsubscribed from samba-cvs. Stopped me from
more headaches.

And about feedback (I mentioned that extra above):

I remember two feedbacks from head-people:

Andrew contacting us about security issues in 2.0.x.

I _really_ appreciated that!
Andrew, if I didn't say thanks: Thanks!

The other one was a cross-ported merge from someone (please
excuse, I don't remember your name!!)

Just to put a light on the other direction:

At times, I look at code in head.

In most cases, I look for ideas and implement them in TNG.
Most times, I at least give in the commit message something
like "nice idea from the other place" or the like.

TDB is a place, I try to keep in sync. It's easier than any
other part, because it's independant of Samba. Our version
is nearly unmodified in respect to head.

Since we have a copy of the version from head, all the
credit should be in the copyright headers.

At most times, I review the changes to TDB. At most times,
I don't care, what's happening there. Unless I really
dislike something. In those cases, I try to mail
samba-technical and try to give constructive criticism.
(check my "tdb namespace pollution" posting on
samba-technical from today.)
And from some experience, I now know, how to write those
postings, so that *something* happens and I don't invest to
much useless work.

>  The
> multi-deamon design has forced the authors to consider much better
> designed solutions at times - in particular the lack of direct access to
> the SAM cleans up a *lot* of ugly code.

Yeah. And this day, I've started to understand, there are
even more places, that can be cleaned up and made a lot
nicer. (Someone I'm currently also mailing with got me in
that direction.)

It's a pity, I don't have the time to do it...

> Anyway, that's my two bobs worth,

Yeah, my two whatever. ;)

I'm quite aware, that it probably was a mistake to write
this mail.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list