patches for time limited getncchanges
mat at samba.org
Mon Nov 14 14:35:39 MST 2011
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 latter ones received a review from tridge, and for the first one
>> it's from you.
> Why did you already pushed
> 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
>> 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:
> 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
> 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
> Also, I still think we should always sort.
More information about the samba-technical