Review request

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Oct 11 14:13:40 MDT 2010

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 17:13 +0300, Kamen Mazdrashki wrote:
> Matthias,
> Sorry for asking but, as long as I read the code,
> you are replacing a code that returns some string, with code
> that returns empty string (but now with a FIXME comment).
> Both implementation are incorrect as long as I understood.
> So my question is -> what is the benefit from this change?
> An if my understanding is correct, then I should suggest you
> to implement a test that reveals what the real behavior should be.
> This test will fail and thus remind us we have something to do.
> What I see now is masking the problem with another problem
> with a FIXME comment :)

I agree. 

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 16:06, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
> <mdw at>wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > and is MS-SAMR to vague for you?
> >
> >> ReplicaSourceNodeName: A counted Unicode string of type
> >> that
> >> represents a replication partner.
> >>

Yes, I think this is vauge.  Which replication partner does it
represent?  How is it selected?  

I think we should have more information and proof before changing
working code into a TODO.  

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