Plans for pdb_ads and auth_netlogond?

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Thu Jun 28 16:44:06 MDT 2012

On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:30 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:54:01PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > 
> > If not let's keep them for 4.0 to give this code a chance (mostly
> > the same thing that we did with ntvfs with the noticeable exception
> > that ntvfs allowed a decent AD experience although not perfect).
> > Can we agree that:
> > * for 4.1 we (== people interested in keeping this code) would have
> > introduced some unit tests
> > * for 4.2 development in (or related) to those module a restarted
> > significantly
> > Failing to comply with this would mean that we should seriously
> > consider the removal of this modules ?
> > 
> > Comments ?
> +1 from me. Very reasonable approach - thanks !

If there is genuine interest in continuing this approach, then certainly
these modules could be restored by those interested in maintaining them.
But I think that they should be restored with appropriate unit or
integration tests, so that other developers making changes across the
source tree can do so with confidence that they are not breaking these
modules.  (This is particularly important given that these modules are
desired to form part of the very foundation of our AD DC). 

I say this because while there has been an number of changes to these
modules in the past 12 months, but they all have been this kind of
consequential change, but without tests it seems unlikely that any
subtle issues accidentally introduced would have been picked up.

Once in, I think that one release cycle would be a reasonable timeframe
to demonstrate a restart of significant development.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 

More information about the samba-technical mailing list