When creating a new file/directory, we need to obey the create mask/directory mask parameters.

[Michael Wood]

On 3 October 2012 08:26, Matthieu Patou <mat at samba.org> wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 09:26 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 12:20:36AM -0400, simo wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>> 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
>>> distros.
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>> Ok. I'll run the poll on samba-technical, and prepare
>> the code changes to remove those parameters (assuming
>> no one is really using them, which actually I think
>> is the case :-). After all, this bug has been there
>> for quite a time.
>>
>> It shouldn't take more than a week or so, I'll ask
>> Karolin to wait until this gets done before doing
>> rc3.
>
> Well if not ready for rc3 it can make it to rc4 ... we are not really
> limited by the number of RCs ...

Although, what's the point of labelling something a "release
candidate" if it's not a candidate for a release.  i.e. if it's not
ready for release (except for unforeseen bugs.)?

I'm not saying you can't have an RC4, though :)

-- 
Michael Wood <esiotrot at gmail.com>