smbd/source3 or ntvfs/source4 for new VFS module development?

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:56:22AM -0500, Ira Cooper wrote:
> Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:31PM -0800, Zack M. Davis wrote:
> >> Dear list,
> >> 
> >> When developing a new VFS module, does it still make sense to put it in
> >> source3/modules/vfs in the source repository and use the `smb_register_vfs`
> >> API as illustrated in examples/VFS/skel_*.c? Or is it preferrable to use
> >> the source4/ntvfs infastructure (which is newer, but ominously described as
> >> "to a large extent [...] deprecated in terms of use for file shares" at
> >> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba/Status#Feature_Status_on_the_AD_DC)?
> >
> > source4/ntvfs is dead. It's legacy code, that will eventually be
> > removed.
> 
> When is eventually?
> 
> Cheers, with pitchforks and torches,

If you send the patch, I'll review it :-).

Although might not be until next week as I'm
in FOSDEM in Europe from tomorrow until next
Thursday (with a side-trip to the UK to visit
family :-).