Where is the talloc repository?

[Michael Adam]

On 2016-03-14 at 12:03 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:32:23AM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 March 2016 08:10:32 Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > 
> > > I notice that talloc-2.1.6 was created recently, and I had just
> > > downloaded 2.1.5 a week or so ago.
> > > 
> > > I would like to keep informed of the changes so I can determine if I
> > > need to pull down the latest release.
> > > 
> > > Where is the repos?
> > 
> > That's what I'm requesting already since a long time. Have talloc and tevent 
> > in its own git tree. It is a pain to maintain them without a repository and 
> > everytime I try to update Samba to a new release I run into the issue that 
> > talloc is not released for that version yet.
> 
> Likewise the other way round: Every time I have to fix a bug in the
> wrappers I have to wait and see that upstream has not done a release
> yet.

I think we need to communicate this more clearly:

- The wrappers' upstream is the samba team.
- Push rights are with the team.
- This in principle includes doing releases, even though
  de facto up to now usually Andreas has done them
  (I think I did 1 or 2).

The purpose in taking wrappers out of the main samba tree is
NOT to reduce the control of the samba team over the code.
And it is NOT to make the life of samba developers more
miserable. But to more clearly separate the doing and place of
the release processes and the version numbering. This makes
everyhing more more explicit and more obvious for external
consumers.

The same holds for he proposed move of talloc/tevent
to its own git.

As Andreas wrote, the problem becomes more apparent
when e.g. packaging samba+tevent+talloc+wrappers (etc)
for a distribution. So the goal is to make the life
of the distributors and other external consumers more easy,
while NOT making the life of samba developers more miserable!

With respect to the proposal to move talloc / tevent to
their own git repo, I think we would need to talk more
explicitly about (and document) the release and commit
process for talloc / tevent etc. We'd want to put up an
autobuild process for these. And need to decide what the
commit policy will be and who will be release maintainer
for these. And whether there will be branches. Etc.

And then we can still put the tevent / talloc etc libs
into third_party in the samba tree. so we have a copy.

Just a few thoughts...

Cheers - Michael



> There is no good solution to this, either way just sucks.  I have
> a few patches locally for the wrappers that are just not worth putting
> through the upstream release process.
> 
> Volker
> 
> -- 
> SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
> phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
> AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
> http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20160314/b2a49e5c/signature.sig>