When creating a new file/directory, we need to obey the create mask/directory mask parameters.
idra at samba.org
Tue Oct 2 22:20:36 MDT 2012
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 20:55 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 01:47:28PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Jeremy, I really don't think you want to start playing maintainer trumps
> > here. The change I object to is the change to the loadparm layer to
> > introduce (essentially) a new read/write global variable.
> Actually Andrew, I don't think you should be making
> assumptions about what I'm doing here. I am explicitly
> the maintainer here, and have been since I wrote this
> This is a maintainer decision, and I'm pointing that out.
> > We should be avoiding global variables in general, and particularly the
> > abuse of global variables in this subtle and confusing way.
> This is the least intrusive fix. I have pointed
> out to you the correct fix. That is much more
> invasive. My feeling is that this should be left
> to 4.1.0.
I do not particularly like the approach of overwriting share parameters,
it is aesthetically unpleasing, but I see why it is easier to do.
However I would like to ask to do semantic changes for 4.0 rather than
wait for 4.1 on different grounds. I think that what you want to do as
the 'proper' fix represent a change in semantics that would be difficult
to accept within a point release. I would rather have semantics change
on a .0 release so that enterprise distributions can more easily upgrade
to 4.1 file servers without breaking their promises.
A semantics change of this magnitude in a point release would make life
difficult for those of us that try to update samba code in enterprise
> > That we are so close to a release is no excuse to put aside good
> > software engineering practice. Indeed, it is every reason to apply that
> > rigour even more strongly.
> I'm happy to get feedback from the samba-technical
> list, but this will push back the next rc, by however
> long it takes to come to a consensus on this.
> That's fine by me, I'm in no hurry :-).
Although I am a bit in a hurry, unless the delay is measured in months
rather than a week or so I would gladly take the delay if the end result
is that all semantic changes happen in 4.0, even if more elegant code
fixes are delayed to 4.1
I just care about changing semantics / dropping legacy options in 4.0
rather than 4.1
> > I remain opposed the the patches as is.
> So noted.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical