group_mapping.ldb and 3.0.25

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

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

Tridge,

> What I'm unclear on is how this is going to get any 
> better in a future release. You are clearly overworked,
> which I sympathise with, but the code has been in the tree
> for about 5 months now.

Thanks for the understanding.  While it is true that the ldb
patch has been in the tree for several months, it is also true
that no one who will be supporting it has gotten interested in
it.  So while I'm more than willing to be a lab rat for a
big enough slice of cheese, this piece of Cheddar is not
Gouda enough to entice me out of the wall :-)

> If we start using ldb in other places in the SAMBA_3_0 tree 
> then the barrier to entry just gets higher (in terms of work
> for lab rats), but if we hold off putting it in more places
> then your current objection remains just as valid for future
> releases.
> 
> So how does a change like this eventually get accepted?

The same way all code makes it from SAMBA_4_0 to SAMBA_3_0.
The people actively working on the 3.0.x releases decide that
we really need it.  This has not yet happened with ldb and I
can't really tell you why.  I had hoped that the group_mapping.ldb
changes would really catch on.  The fact that this is still
an issue indicates to me that its time just has not yet come.





cheers, jerry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF2ox6IR7qMdg1EfYRAmLBAJ4hIHZLSRH8cOLf4e39nrknd69FgACePNjv
SMz3gjAaGUdUwKaZoFEvpJk=
=RA03
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----