The Wrapper Project

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:57:11PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 14:46:44 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > 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 .
> 
> As I said before I don't have a problem with that and would like to host them 
> on git.samba.org. At the moment they are still work in progress. I still need 
> to work on them without a blocking review and I want more tests for them.

It's fine to have a personal tree for your work in progress, but your
repositories have all the looks of being the main project repositories. 
The wrapper libraries are already fairly mature, and we'd like to have external
folks use them - those are good reasons for requiring peer review. 

> > > > 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.
> 
> So you check each samba developers personal git tree on git.samba.org every 
> few days? I don't think so :)

They should not be a personal tree, but rather a tree that all Samba
team members have access to. Including review mails to samba-technical@ and commit
notifications to samba-cvs at .

Cheers,

Jelmer