http://git.samba.org/?p=vl/samba.git/.git;a=shortlog;h=idmap

[simo]

On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:26 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 11:22:42AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:43:09AM -0400, simo wrote:
> > 
> > > If we salvage the "default" option we can still have great flexibility
> > > w/o too much pain. Moving to a per range allocator would make things
> > > simpler to understand from a configuration POV, although it would
> > 
> > Sorry, but here I disagree. Having multiple allocators is
> > bad from my point of view. I don't understand the scenario
> > that you want to cover with it.
> > 
> > > It still means it will break post 3.0.25 configurations that started
> > > using the new scheme. I guess we should do the change in 3.3 and not
> > > 3.2.x so that there are more chances people will check for such major
> > > changes on a version change.
> > 
> > Sure. This is 3.3, not 3.2.
> 
> Jumping into this...
> 
> I've finally had a chance to review Volker's changes
> and they do simplfy things a lot for me. I can
> understand this code, which does help.
> 
> I'd like to propose that they get added into 3.3,
> and we can work on the multi-allocator enhancements
> and other things we'll need for the Dec release.
> 
> That way we can get more testing and experience
> with the new code.

Ok, but at one condition, the one that commits have to write up the
explanation that we must put in the release notes about the incompatible
changes.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <ssorce at redhat.com>