Default DNS server for Samba 4.0

Michael Adam obnox at
Sun Sep 9 16:03:53 MDT 2012

On 2012-09-07 at 08:02 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 15:09 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > I absolutely agree to Kai here: Requiring the code to be covered
> > with tests for accepting to change a default is invalid and seems
> > very unfair to me when the code from which the default status is
> > to be taken has almost no automatic test coverage at all.
> I think it is a perfectly reasonable requirement.  If you want to change
> the default, then there is a higher standard than just adding another
> optional feature.  If you care so much about this, perhaps you could
> work with Kai to add the tests?
> I've worked with, written and debugged way to much code that 'should
> work' or was at one point manually tested, and I'm really quite
> surprised to hear an argument that having code outside the automated
> test regime is acceptable.  As the person doing the most work on the DC
> side of Samba 4.0 at the moment, the single thing that continues to save
> my backside on a daily basis is 'make test' and autobuild.  We don't
> have the large development team we used to have on the AD DC, and that's
> sad.  But that means even more that I want to ensure that critical parts
> of our system are as tested as they can be, despite and during changes
> to the underlying libraries, and that *new defaults* that are proposed
> are even more tested than what they propose to obsolete.  

Yes, and for the internal DNS code, this is the case! There are
more automatic tests for it than for the bind setup. And I will
try and get some ressources to help extend and complete the test

You don't really need to convince me, that test-covered code is
a good thing and something toward which we should strive. But
again, I don't by the veto to switch defaults from a mechanism
that has caused so much grief in the past and is essentially not
covered by tests to a new code that is also run in a couple of
setups and covered with tests to some extent at least (with an
upward trend).

So where are we with this discussion?

Kai has proposed the change of default.
All voices in this thread except yours, Andrew, seem to be supporting the change.

Since I assume changing the default after the RC1 is even less of
an option, can we release the RC1 before we have settled this
discussion? I think we should come to a real conclusion first.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list