Where is the talloc repository?

[Andreas Schneider]

On Saturday 19 March 2016 08:29:33 Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 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.

The problem are not unreleased talloc/tdb/ldb changes. The problem is a 
version bump in the core libs and without a tarball release which means Samba 
requires a version which has not been released yet.


Best regards,


	-- andreas

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