The Wrapper Project
jelmer at samba.org
Wed Nov 20 06:46:44 MST 2013
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:35:38PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 13:24:59 Michael Adam wrote:
> > I really like the idea of making these wrapper libraries
> > generally useful and publish them separately for other projects
> > to use for testing in other projects.
> > What I don't like at all is the approach to first rip them out
> > of the samba tree, work on them completely off-record and then
> > change samba to use these augmented external copies once they
> > are ready.
> > I would have argued that our usual mode for development of
> > features should have been applied: prepare stuff in a personal
> > samba git repo/branch, present the patches for review, bring
> > the changes into samba (so samba uses the new features internally
> > as early as possible), have the improved system mature inside
> > samba and then make an independent release. Maybe as the very
> > last step externalize the source tree.
> > ...Just like for talloc, tevent, tdb, ...
> > We have recently even decided to not externalize the code
> > repositories of these three libraries, even though at least
> > some of them can be considured mature enough and all of them
> > are released separately and shipped with many linux distros.
> As you know I don't agree to have them in the Samba tree but this is a
> different topic.
Including them in the Samba tree is different still from hosting them
elsewhere, where other Samba developers can not easily contribute to them
and using other technologies than we use elsewhere in Samba.
I can see the point in having separate git trees, but I'd like to see them
hosted on git.samba.org, with reviews on samba-technical at .
> > I think this approach would also have given you much more and
> > earlier feed-back and contributions by samba-developers. And
> > I don't buy the argument that externalizing makes it easier
> > for others to contribute. I don't believe this.
> Your late email shows the opposite, doesn't it?
I disagree. It show the development on the wrapper libraries is happening
invisible to samba-technical, apart from the e-mail you sent to the list.
More information about the samba-technical