Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 01:03 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm trying hard to make one more time upgradeprovision work against all 
> the change that are introduced in the code of samba4.
> 
> It would be just great if you could do a test with upgradeprovision 
> --full -s path_to_alpha10_smb.conf when you modify the samdb code (and 
> especially when you add more strict checks).

> It will give you an idea that you are breaking upgradeprovision and that 
> maybe you can do things in a different way not to break it, and if it's 
> not possible then we can discuss ...
> 
> In the particular case of this changeset I guess that the relax control 
> has to be used, any idea or remarks ?

I guess that this is another case for relax.  

However, until we have an automated test for this, it will keep
happening.  

I'm very happy to have a full provision stored in the tree, for exactly
this kind of regression testing.  Please add samples from all the alpha
versions that you can, and a test that tries to upgrade it.  That is the
only way we will stop this pattern. 

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: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100810/89fe7566/attachment.pgp>