[PATCH] ctdb-server: Remove one-line goto
swen at vnet.ibm.com
Fri Mar 16 06:59:19 UTC 2018
On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 07:41 +1300, Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
> On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 09:17 +0100, Swen Schillig via samba-technical
> > More thoughts ?
> > Cheers Swen.
> My main thought is that reformatting code to README.Coding should be
> done with care and great thought.
> There is much non-compliant code in Samba and while that isn't a
> situation we have not chosen so far to do a wholesale reformat.
> In particular changes like this consume abnormal amounts of review
> resources and attract bike-shedding, dragging in even more folks to
> They are also more risky than you might expect, because this is the
> single easiest way to introduce a regression, as it is 'only'
> reformatting, but actually changes the control flow.
> Your attention on Samba is most welcome, but I we are over-flowing
> end-user visible bugs, perhaps you could help with some of those, or
> (at the more mechanical but valuable) the Python2->Python3
> Andrew Bartlett
Andrew, thank you very much for thoughts, as always very well
You can't take this patch as if it was sent in as a stand-alone patch.
It is actually part of a 12-patch-series which derived from
a splitted 3- or 4-patch series.
Anyhow, your interpretation is pretty accurate, I'm new to the project,
trying to find my way through and might be too hard on the list in
But I have to say, the SAMBA team is not making it too easy either.
Sometimes certain (coding-)practices are OK and sometimes they're evil.
Sometimes a patch is too big and sometimes too small to be worth it.
Sometimes README.Coding is the bible and sometimes the bible is wrong.
Some say, do one-liner-cleanups "while-at-it" fixing stuff others say
patches need to fix/change one thing at a time.
I know, not all projects out there do things the same way, but it would
be a lot easier if SAMBA could be slightly more consistent in its
opinions/rules. # Opening the door to get flooded by disagreements.
Regarding bike-shedding and cleanups vs real bugfixes.
I recently sent in 3-4 patches for the s3 area, guess which one got the
most attention and is pushed already while the "mem leak" one is still
sitting there :-)
As for the cleanup-only patches, I asked before sending my first one,
how the SAMBA team handles/wantd those and I heard they're very
welcome, especially if they reduce LOC.
I'm not complaining, just saying.
So, please go easy on me, I'm usually getting around pretty quick and
won't bother you guys anymore...at least not more than others :-)
More information about the samba-technical