The Wrapper Project

[Simo]

On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 15:16 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:14:34PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 November 2013 15:04:00 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:57:11PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 20 November 2013 14:46:44 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:35:38PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday 20 November 2013 13:24:59 Michael Adam wrote:
> > > > > > > I really like the idea of making these wrapper libraries
> > > > > > > generally useful and publish them separately for other projects
> > > > > > > to use for testing in other projects.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What I don't like at all is the approach to first rip them out
> > > > > > > of the samba tree, work on them completely off-record and then
> > > > > > > change samba to use these augmented external copies once they
> > > > > > > are ready.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I would have argued that our usual mode for development of
> > > > > > > features should have been applied: prepare stuff in a personal
> > > > > > > samba git repo/branch, present the patches for review, bring
> > > > > > > the changes into samba (so samba uses the new features internally
> > > > > > > as early as possible), have the improved system mature inside
> > > > > > > samba and then make an independent release. Maybe as the very
> > > > > > > last step externalize the source tree.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ...Just like for talloc, tevent, tdb, ...
> > > > > > > We have recently even decided to not externalize the code
> > > > > > > repositories of these three libraries, even though at least
> > > > > > > some of them can be considured mature enough and all of them
> > > > > > > are released separately and shipped with many linux distros.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As you know I don't agree to have them in the Samba tree but this is a
> > > > > > different topic.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Including them in the Samba tree is different still from hosting them
> > > > > elsewhere, where other Samba developers can not easily contribute to
> > > > > them
> > > > > and using other technologies than we use elsewhere in Samba.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I can see the point in having separate git trees, but I'd like to see
> > > > > them
> > > > > hosted on git.samba.org, with reviews on samba-technical at .
> > > > 
> > > > As I said before I don't have a problem with that and would like to host
> > > > them on git.samba.org. At the moment they are still work in progress. I
> > > > still need to work on them without a blocking review and I want more
> > > > tests for them.
> > > It's fine to have a personal tree for your work in progress, but your
> > > repositories have all the looks of being the main project repositories.
> > > The wrapper libraries are already fairly mature, and we'd like to have
> > > external folks use them - those are good reasons for requiring peer review.
> > > > > > > I think this approach would also have given you much more and
> > > > > > > earlier feed-back and contributions by samba-developers. And
> > > > > > > I don't buy the argument that externalizing makes it easier
> > > > > > > for others to contribute. I don't believe this.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Your late email shows the opposite, doesn't it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I disagree. It show the development on the wrapper libraries is
> > > > > happening
> > > > > invisible to samba-technical, apart from the e-mail you sent to the
> > > > > list.
> > > > 
> > > > So you check each samba developers personal git tree on git.samba.org
> > > > every
> > > > few days? I don't think so :)
> > > 
> > > They should not be a personal tree, but rather a tree that all Samba
> > > team members have access to. Including review mails to samba-technical@ and
> > > commit notifications to samba-cvs at .
> > 
> > The changes are not just small changes. uid_wrapper is more or less is a major 
> > rewrite I've just finished last week after having tests for the code.
> 
> That's not a reason not to have review. I don't see why there should be
> different standards here than for the rest of the Samba codebase.

Because originally the project Andreas built was not a Samba codebase
project ?

Andreas is offering that code 'back'.

Simo.