patches for time limited getncchanges

[Matthieu Patou]

On 14/11/2011 20:47, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Matthieu,
>
>> I'm planning to push tomorrow my patches for the isRecycled and for time
>> limited getncchanges.
> Which is the exact branch?
The misc_review.


>> The latter ones received a review from tridge, and for the first one
>> it's from you.
> Why did you already pushed
> https://gitweb.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=b8a077296ac666cf45cafe7e86edc390dce0e511
> I asked you to use "TRUE" and "FALSE" together with strncmp().
Well the email just says "TRUE", although that arguably I could also do 
the "false" to "FALSE"
Pushed by mistake.
> Also I'd expected that you push this together with the rest of
> isRecycled patches.
>
>> I decided not to include the patch
>> http://git.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;a=commit;h=cf1ba1db88311cf3cb97cb5ffc833036be5f0850
>>
>> about the sorting or the lack of sorting for the base DN.
>>
>> I think it's worthwhile not to sort as we can cope with it and my tests
>> with windows has shown that windows can cope too.
>> It saves us a big sort that can costly on a big amount of objects, but I
>> don't want to delay too much my patches for something that is not
>> currently critical.
>>
>> Then branch I plan to push is at
I think I pasted the wrong link, it was this one:

https://git.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/misc_review
>> http://git.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;a=commit;h=cf1ba1db88311cf3cb97cb5ffc833036be5f0850.
> That's a commit url not a branch.
>
>> If no objection I'll push it.
> Please don't push.
So the branch you have to look is misc_review (which don't contain the 
following patch).
>
> https://git.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=cf1ba1db88311cf3cb97cb5ffc833036be5f0850
> is wrong, it means we'd crash as changes is uninitialized.
This one is not intended for push, it's here for discussion, initially 
it was before the patch
"s4-drs: avoid calling unecesserly ldb_msg_find_attr_as_... " but as I'm 
planning not to push it I changed the order and solved the conflict.
In fact the correct version was still in my local repo and not on the 
server.
>
> Also, I still think we should always sort.


-- 
Matthieu Patou
Samba Team
http://samba.org