ldb for 3.0.24?

[simo]

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 09:46 -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> simo wrote:
> 
> > I think Jerry will always have the last say, personally 
> > I am confident that ldb can do its job very well, and there
> > no major problems in the code. The use cases we can have
> > in samba 3 are much simpler than what we have in samba 4
> > and I don;t expect to see ldb used in any other more
> > complex way any soon.
> 
> Simo,  I'm not sure that I trust that judgment unless you
> tell me that you have tested upgrading from 3.0.23d to
> SAMBA_3_0_24 and that we're not going to have these types
> of internal changes that would break things.  So exactly
> what are you basing your confidence on here?  Use of Samba 4 ?
> or of SAMBA_3_0_24?

Actually there is no difference in the upgrade path from 3.0.23d to
3.0.24, the changes were internal to ldb, and target at getting more
speed out of it (and they have not yet been ported back to samba3
anyway).
Of course I use ldb primarily in Samba4.

> I'm still going to pull it from 3.0.24 and we can look at
> it again for 3.0.25 perhaps.

If you don't feel confident I can't obviously push it. I think ldb code
is mature and stable enough to get into samba3, but I see others have
different views.
If the criteria to get it into samba3 is that it has to be untouched for
several months to consider it stable, I think it will never get in.

It seem to me we are back again to the specious discussion that:

If it is not modified it unmaintained, if it is modified it is unstable.
vs
If it is not modified it is stable, if it is modified it is maintained.

I don't want to get into this discussion again, so I leave the decision
completely up to you. If you feel confident, use it, if not don't.


Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
http://samba.org