Any problem with a 1.8MB blob in the tree? Re: Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Sun Aug 15 04:25:59 MDT 2010

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:55 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 10:30 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > On 15/08/2010 05:00, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 00:04 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Is this kind of patch ok for you ?
> > >>
> > >> Should I wait until MDW fix the two pb that I noted or should I push it
> > >> now ?
> > > We can't add tests that fail, so you will need to work with mdw to sort
> > > out the issues (or at least mark it as knownfail for now).  In any case,
> > > I don't see any patch attached, so I can't really comment.
> > >
> > Sorry I forget to paste this URL:
> >;a=commit;h=b201a6c2fdbfd05440f55d090ec96cc1a5c1fb7f
> This looks fine.  
> We should make it 'pass' if the old provision tarball is not present, so
> we can exclude it from the tarballs we distribute.  Also perhaps we
> should bzip2 it?

Just before you put it in, I just want to ask the team:

Is there any problem adding a 1.8MB blob to our samba4 testsuite?  It is
an old Samba4 provision we wish to upgrade.  We may add more in future,
and it could get out of hand, but on the flip side, without this we
can't hold to our promises about upgrades very well.


Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
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: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list