Possible reason for f5a0ccc228ce1ef failure

[Michael Adam]

On 2016-03-23 at 20:56 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 07:21:48AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > You mean you think it's the right thing to do? Pull a gid
> > > from a different winbind than this is going to be used in?
> > 
> > No, the opposite: Separating the ranges is the right thing to do!
> > 
> > I'm going to look into the socket path issue, I don't know why that is
> > the case but I agree it is most suspicious. 
> 
> Alternatively, you might want to push the attached patchset.
> Metze has just fixed the underlying issue I believe. It did
> survive a private autobuild for me.

Awesome! This looks like it.

Cheers to Metze for nailing this faster than
I or the rest of us, while he was so busy. ;-)

According to our rule of bisectability, I guess the
knownfail patch should be squashed with the actual fix, right?

Otherwise: reviewed-by Me.

Michael
-------------- 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/20160323/d14d9e78/signature.sig>