ldb for 3.0.24?

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

Simo,

> I had no plans to immediately merge that 
> code anyway. Seem there are pretty hard feelings around
> ldb and I don't want to force that code on anyone.

I'll clarify some more in my next response to Tridge.
Let me please put and end to this thread.  There are *no*
hard feelings.  I asked Volker to remove ldb from the
SAMBA_3_0_24 as a snap judgement.  He was only doing what
I asked him to do. So if anyone gets heat over this it
should be me.

Now that I've said that, I just had a chat with Jeremy
about this.  My concern was based on a combination of
(a) metze's comments, and (b) our blind faith in ldb
in the SAMBA_3_0_24 tree.  It has nothing to do with
the quality of ldb.  But no one has stepped up to certify
the code for release.  Tridge did a great job with the
initial port but some things have changed since then.
I'm a little paranoid about new code that I don't fully
understand so metze's comment raised a red flag for me.
I was willing to postpone the ldb usage until 3.0.25
where Volker was considering using it as the registry
backend for his current work.

Jeremy has now offered to certify the code by the final
release which really just boils down to a lot of QA
activities.  This makes me happy again since I would like
to get wider distribution of ldb.  But only if people
who spend the majority of their time working within the
3.0.24 codebase are comfortable with it.  Jeremy's
+1 is enough for me.  So if ldb does happen to crash
and burn in the next release, I have someone to blame :-)
Because honestly, I don't have the time right now to
QA it.

So all that being said, please give Volker a break
and flame me instead.  But also understand that it
was a quick technical decision based on release concerns.
I will admit that perhaps I overreacted, and I am not
above being willing to change my position as long as
I have someone else to point a finger at if things don't
work out.





cheers, jerry