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

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Hi abartlet,

I would say that this is doable - and it's a justified reason.

Matthias

Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 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:
>>> http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;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.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
>