This patchset fixes build warnings, dead code and memory leaks in Samba.
Created attachment 9510 [details] v4-1-test patch
Do we really need all of them in a release? I do see the memleak in production code like smbget or get_dc_ip, but the others are only in test code. I'd like to keep the release diffs small if there's no real requirement that comes from production code problems.
I could only fix them in our RPM, but I prefer to not carry around patches which are not in the upstream branch. They popped up cause our internal tools found the issues and I would like to silence them.
Comment on attachment 9510 [details] v4-1-test patch I generally understand Volker's concern. The memleaks are for granted, although I find such a collection bug "fix a bunch of this and that" slightly problematic. Nevertheless, ok for this time. Most of the other fixes are in test code. So since this does not increase the diff in the production code unneccessarily, you get my ACK... ;-)
Comment on attachment 9510 [details] v4-1-test patch -1ing this: We need a discussion how to deal with absolutely non-production critical patches. Our downstream distros should be able to pretty much trust us to just fix critical bugs within a release stream. This patchset requires every OEM to go through much more stuff than strictly necessary. I'll take back that -1 after a public discussion about this topic.
(In reply to comment #5) > Comment on attachment 9510 [details] > v4-1-test patch > > -1ing this: We need a discussion how to deal with absolutely non-production > critical patches. Our downstream distros should be able to pretty much trust us > to just fix critical bugs within a release stream. This patchset requires every > OEM to go through much more stuff than strictly necessary. I'll take back that > -1 after a public discussion about this topic. Fair enough. I think Volker has some good points here. We should discuss and agree upon a policy for bugfix releases more precise than just "we need a bug". What is it that we want to achieve? Volker's position is to bring in only the strictly necessary patches, and there are some very good reasons for this. Probably we have two motivations: 1. A distributor will be interested in keeping the diff between upstream released code and his version small. 2. Samba.org is (or should be, according at least to Volker and subject to discussion) interested in keeping the diff between the initial release of a bugfix release stream (in this case 4.1.0) and the next version (4.1.NEXT) small. So with the samba-team hat on, we should indeed argue to keep the torture fixes out of the release, because they are not generally necessary, and while harmless for production still clobber the diff and history and are also generally irrelevant for the release. Where do we go from here? Michael
Closing as wontfix ... :)
(In reply to comment #7) > Closing as wontfix ... :) That's not what I had in mind. I wanted clarification from the Samba Team about its approach to dot-releases. I am fine with porting back anything, as long as the Samba Team decides that this is what is wanted.