ldbdump is a vaulable tool and should be retained.

[simo]

On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 17:24 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> 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.

Michael,
I apologize for the 'tone', it was harsh, and I should have been waiting
for the fumes to set down before writing.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>