Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Sat Aug 15 13:16:33 MDT 2009
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 09:14:53AM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> IIRC metze wanted the seqnum removed. I think you might want
> to talk to him. The reasoning was that the sequence number
> was not reliable anyways since it was being reported from
> the winbindd parent and it was the children that had the
> up-to-date information.
When looking at the implementation of
WINBINDD_SHOW_SEQUENCE inside the winbind parent, I get the
impression that it walks all domains and explicitly asks the
children. I would have to look, but I would bet a lot that
that code is a lot older than 12 months. Can you point me at
the piece of the code that reports this from the parent
> Besides that, the change was over 12 months ago. I'm afraid
> if you need the patch reverted, I'll have to leave it in
> your hands.
You removed that functionality as part of a checkin doing
something completely similar, at least from the checkin
message. It is my fault to not having watched close enough,
but I think it is not unreasonable to ask you to fix a
regression you introduced.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical