rid backend seems to be initialized twice?

Gerald (Jerry) Carter jerry at samba.org
Sat Oct 13 16:27:50 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1


> Maybe, I need to think about this, I don't buy it completely right now.
> Not because what you say does not make sense, but because the same thing
> maybe true even if the file is in the same position with exactly the
> same patch applying perfectly. Once you have multiple trees you pull
> from there is always the chance of side interaction between your code
> and the code that differs, so if you bring this conclusion to the
> extreme it means you should never merge. But we know that merge is
> necessary, powerful, and also is ok most of the time.

Maybe I should clarify that git-merge and "svn merge" only share
the same name but functionaly are too different thing.  You can
ensure that a patch doesn't break the tree only by testing.  Perhaps
you are changing a static function and can prove that there are no
side affects.  But the problem is done via units tests which can
be plugged into an SCM as part of the commit hook interface if you
like.  But mathematically, it is still a different patch against
a different tree.

> But as I said, this is a minor issue, let's move on.

It's no really a minor issue to me.  I think we do way too much
unnecessary housekeeping.  This is one of my pet peeves.  When file
renames are required for internal refactoring, that is one thing.
But just renaming files so the directory tree looks prettier is
just silly IMO.

Sorry you are on the receiving end of my rant.  :-)  Not that you
have done any unnecessary renames lately anyways.  You just hit a
hot button issue to me.  So thanks for listening.

cheers, jerry
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the samba-technical mailing list