[Samba] [PATCH] Re: fsmo _role_seize _issue

[Neal Murphy]

On Thursday, May 09, 2013 09:24:52 PM Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> > What me confuses a bit on the 'fsmo seize' output was, that it first
> > says, 'transferd successfull' and in the next line 'FSMO seize was not
> > required, as transfer of 'infrastructure' role was successful'. What
> > does it mean?
> 
> I am happy to improve the wording, suggestions would be most
> appreciated.  See python/samba/netcmd/fsmo.py

How about:

FSMO transfer of 'infrastructure' role suceeded.
    (FSMO seize was not required.)

and

FSMO transfer of 'infrastructure' role FAILED.
    (You must use --force to seize it.)

And for pedantic thoroughness:

FSMO seizure of 'infrastructure' role succeeded.
FSMO seizure of 'infrastructure' role FAILED.

Those four messages would clearly communicate what transpired; the latter two 
imply that a normal transfer failed.

N