CVS update: tng/source/passdb
elrond at samba-tng.org
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
When I looked at them, I thought, "Hey, that looks like
something I did half a year ago, let's see, how they did
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% 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
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.
> 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
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
More information about the samba-technical