The Wrapper Project

[Michael Adam]

On 2013-11-20 at 10:55 -0500, Simo wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 15:16 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:14:34PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 20 November 2013 15:04:00 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > > 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 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 .
> > > 
> > > The changes are not just small changes. uid_wrapper is more or less is a major 
> > > rewrite I've just finished last week after having tests for the code.
> > 
> > That's not a reason not to have review. I don't see why there should be
> > different standards here than for the rest of the Samba codebase.
> 
> Because originally the project Andreas built was not a Samba codebase
> project ?

Er, well. Am I missing something here, or are
socket_wrapper, nss_wrapper, uid_wrapper originally
part of the samba project? ... ;-)

So naturally, Andreas' project should (imho) have been
a samba codebase project in the first place.

But as Volker wrote: This is Free Software.
So you can certainly take that other road.

> Andreas is offering that code 'back'.

And offering back is certainly appreciated, it is just
a pity that this "back" part is necessary at all.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 215 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20131120/633b703b/attachment.pgp>