ldbdump is a vaulable tool and should be retained.

[Michael Adam]

On 2012-10-31 at 00:03 -0400, simo wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 14:55 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 22:35 -0400, simo wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 22:31 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > This change was completely gratuitous and unnecessary.
> > > > Every single function here takes a a module structure as a context.
> > > > Changing this convention for a single function makes no sense, it
> > > > just makes the interface irregular with absolutely no gain whatsoever.
> > > > 
> > > > Simo Sorce (1):
> > > >   Revert "ldb: Change ltdb_unpack_data to take an ldb_context"
> > > > 
> > > >  lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_index.c  | 2 +-
> > > >  lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_pack.c   | 4 +++-
> > > >  lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_search.c | 6 +++---
> > > >  lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_tdb.c    | 2 +-
> > > >  lib/ldb/ldb_tdb/ldb_tdb.h    | 2 +-
> > > >  5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I just realizwed the damage has been compounded by exposing a module
> > > private interface to a separate utility.
> > > 
> > > I will send a patch that fixes that too.
> > > This is exactly the kind of crap for which reviews would *really* be
> > > helpful.
> > 
> > This utility was posted to the list, and was critical to the partial
> > recovery of a corrupted ldb at a production site.  
> > 
> > How else should we provide such functionality, and do you propose to do
> > the work?  Otherwise, for the small price of a change to an internal
> > function prototype, I think this is a very valuable improvement.  
> > 
> > Sadly we will again need this kind of tool in the future.
> 
> Yes and sadly once again you don't care for building good code
> respecting the internal interfaces and respecting other developers work.
> You are content with dumping a half hack into the source tree by what
> substantially amounts to abusing your commit rights and then leave to
> others later to take up the slack and waste *their* time to fix the
> damage.
> 
> Yes I do agree that an ldbdump utility may be a good thing, but you have
> to do it right so that it is done in an acceptable way.
> If you don't care for doing it right then just make a patch in your
> private tree and give it to your customer as a quick hack.
> 
> I am tired of having to keep finding your gems in the code and have to
> waste my time on fixing your code, my time is as valuable as yours.

Simo, I think the tone of your mail(s) in this thread is not
appropriate. Even if you are right technically, this lacks a
basic level of respect with which we should treat each other,
especially in the public.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20121031/8c40eb32/attachment-0001.pgp>