NTSTATUS trick for NTTIME?
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Wed Mar 9 06:46:56 MST 2011
Changing my mind, this is the right thing IMO.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:58:25PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> What I'm asking for is an idea of the eventual scale.
I give you the scale: It's going to be large and intrusive,
touching code all over the place. SAMR, NETLOGON, and the
file server at least.
Looking at our MAINTAINTERS file I see:
> Note that a veto is supposed to be used only for purely
> technical reasons, so for example pointing out a security
> concern with a change, or pointing out that the code may
> segfault or cause a regression of functionality.
Can you back up your veto with such an aspect or an
equivalently strong one?
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
More information about the samba-technical