the sorry saga of the talloc soname 'fix'

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 11:48:36AM +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> 
> > So yes, congratulations all round are in order. You've just overridden
> > the talloc package maintainer by introducing real bugs, made us
> > non-portable, introduced silent and difficult to track failures of
> > applications, broken the ABI promises, lied to the distro package
> > managers and loader and generally had a great time. But at least we
> > haven't brought the good name of free software into disrepute by
> > using up a precious .so number, so it was all worth it.
> 
> Tridge, I don't think this has overridden you as
> the talloc library maintainer - this thing is your
> baby and you make the technical decisions on how it works.
> If you say the right technical bugfix is to require us to
> break the ABI, we break the ABI and deal with it, no question.
> But you must admit this fix didn't *require* us to break the
> ABI. I'm sorry you feel overridden on this, I don't think
> that was the intention of anyone.

The problem I have here is:  In our development tree, why was time of
such an imperative that this had to be overridden without a discussion
and agreement on the list?

Can I expect things that I maintain and care passionately about (but my
turn out to be wrong about) be overridden just because it feels better
to do so than hold a discussion?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20090706/97cfe43a/attachment.bin