Default DNS server for Samba 4.0
obnox at samba.org
Sun Sep 9 17:35:23 MDT 2012
On 2012-09-10 at 08:25 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 00:03 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On 2012-09-07 at 08:02 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > ... 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
> > suite.
> > 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?
> At the moment, to my reading of the code, the ACL support is not
> implemented correctly (wrong owner of created objects). The tests I
> described in my last mail would confirm if they are or are not, and
> given we have had to go over that particular issue twice already, we
> really, really should have an automated test for that.
Ok, there might be a bug. No surprise. :-)
This needs to be analyzed and covered with tests and possibly
fixed. No reason to veto, imho.
> > Kai has proposed the change of default.
> > All voices in this thread except yours, Andrew, seem to be supporting the change.
> For all the huffing and puffing over this, I've not see any progress on
> any of the testing requirements I've suggested.
Well, it was not a lot of time...
There will be more tests soon.
> I'm sorry that everyone else seems to have promised Kai that he
> could switch this on by default as soon as the code is complete,
No, this is not about promising!
I don't think anyone has promised anything to Kai.
It is rather about people supporting the default change
now that the code is basically complete.
It is also not a conspiracy, it is simply that people
seem to like the step.
> but without that testing, my position remains unchanged at this point.
Well, we seem to have reached an impasse in that.
I don't see that using the incomplete tests as a lever for
blocking the default change is valid in this particular case.
But unfortunately, I need to drop off this discussion for tonight
to get some sleep...
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical