[PATCH] fix for bug 10882

[Jeremy Allison]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > > that added the saltPrincipal, so I think it is wrong to say that
> > > Garmin's patch isn't right.
> > 
> > What commit refspec was that ? Andreas, can you comment here
> > so we can get this sorted ?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > 	Jeremy.
> 
> 
> I think it is '86652c02083b411ad94217a871a2bcc81f16b369'

Yep, that added it - the 'fail' checks if it doesn't
exist came later.

> What is really annoying me is that I posted my patch on the 17th June
> and nothing, now on the 8th September it isn't right, I can accept
> this, but it is anoying to have to wait nearly three months to told
> this.

Yes, this shouldn't happen. As a Team member you have the
right to timely review of patches - well everyone should
really, but to be honest many Team members prefer writing
their own stuff to reviewing other people's code. We as a
Team need to get better at this.

If you don't get a timely review, don't drop or ignore it -
make a fuss to the relevent subject matter experts. If you
still get ignored I am always "reviewer of last resort"
(which means sometimes I end up pushing stuff that's not
quite right, but that's the fault of the subject matter
experts who ignored the initial review requests IMHO :-).

> Andrew is quite correct if you think about it, 'samba_upgradedns'
> probably isn't the right tool to re-create a missing 'dns-*' user.
> Unless it is done via a switch ???

As I'm sure you can tell, this isn't my area of expertise :-).

Where do you think this should be done ?