[ldb] Re: [PATCH] Core ldb modules changes

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Am Freitag, den 18.01.2008, 11:55 +1100 schrieb Andrew Bartlett:
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:50 -0500, simo wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 11:47 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:30 -0500, simo wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 10:57 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > The point of an async API is to avoid having to collect data.  With this
> > > > > limitation, we may as well make it sync. 
> > > > 
> > > > The point of an async API is to not block, and nothing else.
> > > > Collecting data has nothing to do with that.
> > > 
> > > Then I feel we are let down by your new view of what their purpose is. 
> > > 
> > > This is a regression.  It may be one you feel you need to force, but I
> > > still don't see why it cannot be handled. 
> > Patches (that work) welcome, after I am finished.
> Perhaps we should merge it into a branch other than samba4?  That way
> ldb development and Samba4 releases can continue unhindered?
I think we should not consider merging *any* feature branches until the
same feature level has been achieved as exists in the main Samba 4
branch. There is no reason to have regressions in the main branch, since
git easily allows long-lived feature branches to exist.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080118/0835660c/attachment.bin