ntdb in Samba?
obnox at samba.org
Sat Mar 14 06:14:31 MDT 2015
On 2015-03-13 at 20:51 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:01:42PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > Excellent idea.
> > I also find it regrettable that the proposed git tree has been
> > withdrawn so fast..
> My point is that we need a better communication strategy about which
> pieces of Samba we want to take the liberty to change without notice
> and which pieces we stick to.
That is easy (and has been stated several times):
All components that are not explicitly flagged as
published APIs/libraries can be changed by us at will.
External consumers will have to adapt.
> This is the third time in quick succession that my patches
> break external consumers of our internals.
This is not true as far as I am aware of, at least unless you
have other cases than the one we talked about yesterday:
The case we talked about is at least not at all an external consumer
but unpushed an patchset that is intended for samba master upstream.
It was pointed out that this patchset seems to be using parts of ccan.
But that's life of all unpushed code: If upstream changes,
that code has to adapt. It is as simple as that, imho.
And it was even pointed out that in the worst case,
this code could even copy parts of ccan.
> The current strategy does not work, people just do not know
> what they can depend upon.
They should. Everything else is based upon wrong assumptions.
See above. :)
> Until we get better in that, I don't think there is much we can
> afford to do in terms of refactoring.
> The branch is back,
Thanks, that's appreciated!
> but we need to solve that problem very soon.
As indicated above, I don't think that we have a
problem in the case of this patchset at all.
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical