The Wrapper Project

[Andreas Schneider]

On Wednesday 20 November 2013 22:58:34 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> 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?

I still would prefer that they reside in their own repo and you download, 
compile and install them like the rest of the free software projects we use.

If most people still don't agree with this approach, we could think about git 
submodule or have a copy in the samba tree and keep them in sync.

I'm fine to put them on git.samba.org while they are still work in progress. 
However someone needs to create the repositories, set up email hooks etc.


	-- andreas

-- 
Andreas Schneider                   GPG-ID: CC014E3D
Samba Team                             asn at samba.org
www.samba.org