[Samba] getting (FreeBSD port) patches upstream first

[Andrew Walker]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:53 AM James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, August 25, 2020 21:11, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 14:12 -0400, Andrew Walker via samba wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 1:17 PM James B. Byrne via samba <
> >> samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, August 24, 2020 22:19, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > A bit of an aside, but it would be incredibly awesome if the
> >> > > FreeBSD
> >> > > port could adopt the same policy as, eg, Debian and not ship any
> >> > > patches that are not upstream.
> >> > >
> >> > I believe that Timur has indeed submitted patches of this nature.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Timur did attempt to upstream the talloc patch here:
> >>
> https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2018-February/125592.html
> >
> > I've looked this over, and this is exactly the right example, as it
> > happens.  There was a great discussion about the patch, and ultimately
> > it was rejected.
> >
> > This is good feedback, and should not have been ignored in my view.
> > Note that I said 'are not upstream', not 'have not been submitted
> > upstream'.
> >
> > The gap between those two things ends up being the issue here, which is
> > when patches we (as the Samba Team) don't agree with are still applied
> > by distributors and porters, all the QA, experience etc applied to
> > Samba.org releases is just discarded.
> >
> > It also just makes bug triage much harder, and we have seen here that
> > triage of FreeBSD issues is hard enough right now.
> >
> > Now of course there are always matters of degree in this, but is is an
> > important principle to start with.
> >
> > Andrew Bartlett
> >
>
> I am not arguing for or against anyone's position on this.
>
> Without those patches Samba will not provision as an AD-DC on FreeBSD.  The
> choice for users of FreeBSD therefor is between something that works, and
> is
> deprecated upstream, or nothing at all.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> The last time I checked, the patches necessary for ZFS-backed sysvol for
AD DC were relatively minor. I can double-check on master and make an
appropriate MR when I have time. This is one of the things that has gotten
much better in the past year or so (making merge requests through gitlab).
>From an external standpoint, upstreaming fixes is a much clearer process
than it used to be.