Where is the talloc repository?

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Fri Mar 18 19:29:33 UTC 2016

On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 15:50 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2016-03-15 at 10:45 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:15:46AM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > 
> > > Don't get me wrong: I am more than willing to accept real
> > > arguments, but these don't really seem to click for me,
> > > since they don't my perception of reality and extrapolate
> > > from another case which is somewhat different.
> > 
> > If a patch that is supposed to be merged to Samba siting in an
> > external
> > repo for 4 months without any activity is not an argument showing
> > that
> > split repos are a bad idea, I don't know what you would accept as
> > an
> > argument.

This much I really agree with.

> tl;dr?
> ==> summary: We've been there, and splitting out seems to create
> more problems that is solves.

> On the other hand side, what is the problem with external
> consumers like distro packagers?
> - According to Andreas, it happens that samba ran against
>   unreleased talloc / libfoo code. But with the abi checks
>   in place, how could this actually happen?
>   ==> need a concrete example.

I actually think it is good that git master of Samba can run with
unreleased talloc/tdb/ldb changes.  It isn't OK to release with those,
but otherwise 'technically' we would have to do a core lib release
after every git commit, which just seems wrong.

Whatever we do, we should be able to develop Samba in conjunction with
matching core lib changes without needing to do a release 'on the
spot'.  I actually wish that was the same situation for the cwrap
wrappers, and personally I don't like the way they were split out. 

(The release scripts can be changed to detect a tarball with unreleased
core libs via the git tags, if we really need to)

> - Furthermore Andreas mentioned that it is difficult to really
>   follow the development of the core libs. Well I'd say
>   that it is actually not too complicated. Someone who
>   is a developer and knows how to use git could easily
>   do "git log lib/talloc" in samba and see the history.
> So after looking over the above arguments, it seems to me that
> the disadvantages of splitting the corelibs definitely outweigh
> the advantages as it currently stands.
> Metze tells me that this all has been discussed on the ML
> some time ago and he had given arguments along the above lines.
> (I'd need to search for the mail.)
> So unless more arguments are brought in, I'd consider this
> settled (again?/for now?)... :-)

The only way I can see forward would involve submodules (because we can
just fast forward to a new git hash), but these are also disliked.
Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

More information about the samba-technical mailing list