The Wrapper Project

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at samba.org
Wed Nov 20 15:58:34 MST 2013


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:06:08PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 22:17:24 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:41:02PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 20 November 2013 19:59:35 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:23:33PM -0500, Simo wrote:
> > > > > Yes the code that originated Andreas projects came from Samba.
> > > > > Andreas ran away with to try and see if it could be greatly improved.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For a lot of time it was just hacking around to see if it would work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some times that approach works better, and I am certain in this case
> > > > > did, because it would have been unacceptable to the samba community to
> > > > > break "make test" to do experiments.
> > > > 
> > > > Nobody is objecting to Andreas' taking this code and hacking on it.
> > > > 
> > > > > I really do not see why this is a big deal to be honest. Why does it
> > > > > make any difference how the code was built ?
> > > > 
> > > > Andreas is proposing moving a chunk of code out of the Samba codebase
> > > > taking over maintenance of it, removing it from Samba and having Samba
> > > > depend on that code. [1]
> > > > 
> > > > This means that code to which everybody in the Samba team could easily
> > > > contribute to previously is now harder to edit, harder to follow, and
> > > > changes to it are no longer necessarily audited.
> > > 
> > > Yes, that was set in stone. No review is allowed by others! Where kind of
> > > a
> > > game do we play here now? :)
> > 
> > We're only pointing out the consequences of the proposal we're not
> > comfortable with - that those libraries are being developed
> > "off-the-record",
> > but still proposed for use in Samba.
> > 
> > Nobody said the way these libraries are developed was set in stone; in fact,
> > I think the reason it was mentioned at all was so that it hopefully can
> > change...
> > > > > What difference does it make if you get a review request of 200
> > > > > patches
> > > > > that basically reworks completely most of the code or a request to
> > > > > review something of equal size with a git tree somewhere else ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sound like you are offended that some code was done on someone's own
> > > > > without your knowledge, is that the problem ?
> > > > 
> > > > No, I'm objecting to the suggested changes *to Samba* on the grounds
> > > > that it makes it harder for me to make changes to and follow the
> > > > evolution of a piece of code that I originally wrote.
> > > 
> > > And it makes it harder for *me* get them correctly working as pre-loadable
> > > wrappers and to propose it to other projects.
> > 
> > How does it make it harder for you? What is problematic about hosting those
> > git repositories on git.samba.org, with commit access for and review from
> > the rest of the team?
> 
> Hey, I've discussed this already with Volker, likely also on the list, that 
> the plan is to put them on git.samba.org and to go back to a mandatory review 
> once they are considered stable. My work is not finished and I'm still 
> struggling with some parts. A lot of tests are till missing. Only nss_wrapper 
> has 75% code coverage. Till now nobody asked me if we could create repos for 
> the three of them on git.samba.org and create hooks to get mails while I still 
> work on them and have daily changes of things I just need to try out. Maybe 
> this would be a start.
Thanks, that's great to hear.

Does that also mean that - once you're done with your improvements in
your scratch repos - you're going to propose patches to the existing
samba.git code to land your improvements, and then eventually split
them out into their own repos?

Cheers,

Jelmer


More information about the samba-technical mailing list