[PR PATCH] Bulk octal and exception fixup changes
lbalhar at redhat.com
Thu Mar 1 14:04:47 UTC 2018
On 03/01/2018 01:20 PM, Noel Power wrote:
> On 28/02/18 21:44, Douglas Bagnall wrote:
>> Andrew has reviewed the octal and exception patches (sans extra
>> comments), and we have pushed those to master
> Thank you.
>> , along with my patch to
>> add PY_DESC_PY3_BYTES to py3compat.h. We can look at the other ones when
>> they are ready.
If you add something to compatibility macros which can be useful not
only in Samba, consider pull request in upstream project as well:
> Hmm those bug fix patches are ready unless there is some issue I need to
> know about to address, is there ? or is it you want me to submit them
> separately to the list
> On 28/02/18 23:49, Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical wrote:
>>> Lumír: do you know which patches still need review?
No, thanks. I tried to rebase the latest patchset in the thread and it
seems that all patches are already in master branch. They was just
merged without noticing in the thread so I didn't know about it.
There is one completely forgotten and not up-to-date thread about my
troubles with porting samba.netbios module. If you wan to take a look,
you can try.
>> And can we have all the outstanding python3 patches in one github
>> branch please, ideally cross-reviewed by those involved? (So I can be
>> assured they don't trip over each other)
> Lumir if it helps I can gather what patches we have ready and whatever
> you have outstanding awaiting review into a new branch/pull request. I
> know we have some python c - module changes (some already posted to the
> list e.g. gpo, netbios & smb + some tests) but also we have others
> (passdb, param, smbd, policy, dckeytab) still without tests (or tests
> that can currently be invoked under python3) current (rebase of master
> today) of David & my stuff is
> I think it would be good to have all somewhere more public (maybe even
> if the ones still without tests were at the end of the series and marked
> as WIP or something to avoid work duplication. Or.. I'm open to other
> suggestions please let me know (or point me to the patches) and I will
> try to do something like the above
We have public google spreadsheet about Python 3 porting process
maintained by Alexander Bokovoy. I was the only person writing something
there for a long time and I think that it worth taking a look at it. If
you like the idea, just use it to track your progress and I will know
what I can take.
Unfortunately, after more than a year, I don't have much free time to
focus on porting Samba to Python 3 so any help with this is very
appreciated. I am still available to do some reviews, small patches etc.
but I cannot spend days diving into dependencies as before. Also, with
less amount of time I can spend on Samba I cannot track your progress
and follow what is new and what is already ported.
> However I would say I think especially in the area of the python
> c-module changes, these changes generally are pretty self contained and
> should be easily managed as independent submissions (also I would think
> easier to review). The python3 porting could take some time, changes
> going in quicker (where possible) makes things easier all round rather
> than waiting for some long living branch and dealing with the associated
> dependencies falling out from that.
I agree. The situation is even better when you know how Samba works
internally (which I don't) so you can make bigger changes and
improvements than just porting and is easier to split porting process to
phases instead of diving deeper and deeper with every newly discovered
> Where we can we should pick off any bite size pieces, just my 2 c
Thanks a lot for your work!
More information about the samba-technical