group_mapping.ldb and 3.0.25

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew,

> But wouldn't the argument then be 'this is too big a 
> change, and I'm scared about this now'?  I just worry that
> by putting this off now, it's never going to happen.  What
> is wrong with making this baby step, and using ldb
> in one subsystem to start with?  Then we can expand it's
> use beyond that.
> 
> I certainly agree that it would be great to code the ldap 
> passdb backend against LDB, and likewise use it for many
> other services, but why does that lead you to the conclusion
> to back out ldb now?  Is it breaking something?  Is
> the implementation in group mapping such horrible code
> that can't dare to see the light of day, or just 
> fundamentally flawed?

This is simply release triage.  No one that is supporting
Samba 3.0.x feels good about taking on ldb right now on top
of all of the other features and new code.  Updating
group_mapping to use ldb is a lower priority from my perspective
than things like the new idmap interface, inotify, pidl, etc...
This should not be interpreted as any opinion of ldb on my part.
I'm just a little overworked right now to take on being a lab
rat for ldb.  I would rather deal with the problem I know
than the one I don't know for now.  And getting the 3.0.25
release out takes priority over releasing ldb.

Thanks for understanding.





cheers, jerry
=====================================================================
Samba                                    ------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris                         -----------  http://www.centeris.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF2lNcIR7qMdg1EfYRAtcmAKDt7e9PKopmVxjsnXTTCuWxSQ3jmACfdhgK
dSqZmPeOFHxPeT94UiP70SI=
=xjia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----