group_mapping.ldb and 3.0.25

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

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

Tridge,

> I'm not quite sure why you say that. I have fixed every 
> bug in Samba3 that I have been asked to look at, and
> Simo has been equally active in working on ldb. Simo is now
> the RedHat Samba3 maintainer, and I'm the endpoint for
> helping IBM customers with Samba3. That would seem to be
> pretty good credentials.
> 
> Is there some outstanding bug that I am not aware of? Have 
> I ever taken more than a few hours or days to address an
> issue in my code used in Samba3?
> 
> You seem to have written off half the team as not counting as
> potential maintainers of code. I don't understand why.

You are reading too much into this.  Simo agreed with my
decision.  You and I are the only ones discussing this
currently.

I agree you are quick to fix a bug if it's pointed out to you.
But you cannot honestly tell me that you pro-actively work
releasing the 3.0.x tree. Do you even personally run SAMBA_3_0
on a daily basis or use the group mapping code?

> Who is in your allowable list of maintainers, and who isn't?
> 
> I don't ask this just to pick an argument. I really don't 
> understand how these release decisions are being made.

The model is this.  All code from outside Volker, Jeremy,
and myself is suspect.  All code from Volker, Jeremy, and
myself is suspect.  If I have not personally dug into the
code, it is suspect to me.  Jeremy and Volker feel pretty
much the same way.

Case in point: Jeremy & Guenter tell me of this great
offline logon feature they had working on SLED 10.
Then I start trying to use it.  Doesn't work for me.
Why?  Because it had been tested in a certain type of
configuration.  But now I have it working after a few
fixes and can feel confident in it.

Another case: Simo designed a new idmap interface based on
discussions on samba-technical.  Works for him.  Doesn't
work for me.  And in fact I find certain cases that were
never tested. No offense to Simo.  This is the nature of
the game.  In fact, Simo's code actually was part of the bugs
with the offline logon support.  Now I have backwards compatible
configurations and new idmap domain configurations working.

There are many other cases I could describe.  Ones where
I had something working and either Jeremey or Volker had
to verify it.  Oh for the days when I only had to concern
myself with my own code and my own bugs.  Right now I have
to feel confident in about a half a million lines of code,
most of which I did not write but the majority of which
I do understand.

Jeremy, Volker, and I don't want to ship ldb in 3.0.25 just
for group mapping.  We never have.  This not personal
nor is it a conspiracy but I for one feel like ldb is being
crammed down my throat and I don't want it right now.
Pulling it from 3.0.25 in no way prevents any further exposure
of ldb as a standalone technology and it is being tested
thoroughly in SAMBA_4_0.

> I get the feeling there are discussions happening that 
> I'm not privy to, and perhaps if I knew of them I'd understand
> better. For example you said "no one working on Samba 3.0.x
> seems to feel really confident in our ability to deal with ldb
> on top of everything else". That seems to imply some discussion
> amoung a group of developers and a decision that I haven't
> seen. Is that correct?

There has been constant discussion over the past months about
wanting to pull ldb.  Yes there are some private emails and
phone calls.  But mostly everything is in the open and the
private conversations are more for convenience than anything
else. If you have noticed the apprehension about ldb for the past
few months, I can't help that.  It just never caught on and
I don't feel comfortable taking a chance on it without
having dealt with it more.

You can say this is my fault for not having enough enough
time.  I'll accept that.  But the bottom line is that I have
a release I'm trying to get out.  The other two people I
trust for advice on releases agree with my decision.  So
that is it.  I'm not trying to be popular on this. Just trying
to do what I believe to be best for the Samba production releases.

Thanks.




cheers, jerry

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

iD8DBQFF2xOWIR7qMdg1EfYRAhFEAKDdvhGyGzc9CqIuLXzw8Z4P5bhaNwCaAzog
urQvAtqpGUR7Hnh7jnHg1Cs=
=TuS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----