[ldb] Re: [PATCH] Core ldb modules changes
idra at samba.org
Fri Jan 18 04:35:11 GMT 2008
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 03:08 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> 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.
I have published instruction to get my tree exactly not to merge
anything until I am done, the patch to the list was sent to keep people
not yet familiar to git informed.
I will merge only when make test pass in full.
the standalone ldb make test already passes, when samba4 make test will
pass I will merge.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <ssorce at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical