Validation on upgradeprovision patches needed

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Jul 12 16:41:16 MDT 2010

On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 01:16 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> Hello Andrews,
> As metze and Jelmer are on vacation,
> can one of you had final look on 
> and push it if it's ok.
> I normally addressed the remarks of Matthias and those made by metze on IRC.

These look good, but I hope you won't mind if make some comments:

In s4 dsdb: Use the changereplmetadata control;a=commitdiff;h=351ecebb1b294012bc311ff9b38e24a2b6cb77e0

You do a check for 
+               objectclass_el = ldb_msg_find_element(res->msgs[0], "objectClass");
+               if (is_urgent && replmd_check_urgent_objectclass(objectclass_el,
+                                                               situation)) {
+                       *is_urgent = true;
+               }

In both arms of the if (rmd_is_provided) statement. 

But in any case, if we are offline doing an upgradeprovision, then it
isn't urgent to replicate anything. 

In s4 upgradeprovision: do not copy RID Set it's automaticaly created by
the RID manager;a=commitdiff;h=48773341a19e94ac116bc2aa5327d595c48c4212
+    try:
+        if str(reference[0].get("cn"))  == "RID Set":
+            skip = True

Is this the best way to identify the RID Set? 

Anyway, you have come a very long way on these patches, and I think that
with these small issues addressed, they look good to go in.  The
upgradeprovision work is really, really important, and I really
appreciate the effort you keep putting into it. 


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