Created attachment 6505 [details] patchset for v3-6-test
This is a completely new feature. I'm not sure this is appropriate at this point. I think this is okay for 3.7. Other opinions? Volker
(In reply to comment #2) > This is a completely new feature. I'm not sure this is appropriate at this > point. Well, I thought about this. It is a small but potentially very useful new feature, but only in the "net registry" command. The server code is not affected. So I proposed it for inclusion. One could even choose to only pick the first patch of the series, which does not touch existing net code at all but only adds the new function. > Other opinions? any?
Comment on attachment 6505 [details] patchset for v3-6-test Jeremy, what do you think of this small addition?
Comment on attachment 6505 [details] patchset for v3-6-test So I'm ok with it as a new feature, but only after you've updated the net command documentation :-). Other than that it doesn't affect anything else. Jeremy.
Created attachment 6519 [details] patchset for the net manpage This is a patchset for the net manpage. It actually not only documents "net registry enumerate_recursive", but also fixes a typo, and adds missing documentation for "net registry deletekey_recursive". They all should go into 3.6. Jeremy?
==> Assigning to Jeremy. The manpage patch has been added some time ago. Jeremy, are you still willing to pass this on into 3.6.0 ? Thanks - Michael
Ok with manpage. Re-assigning to Karolin for 3.6. Jeremy.
*sigh* I disagree. Volker is right, this is not the right point to add new features (and I wrote it in a mail). I'll push the patches this time (because it's really harmless, but please, please do understand that it's the last exception!
Pushed to v3-6-test. Closing out bug report.
Karolin, you're the boss. Do not feel you have to push this if it will disrupt the release. Note in my comment assigning it to you I mentioned it should go into 3.6. I didn't say 3.6.0 (it could have meant 3.6.1 :-). Jeremy.
(In reply to comment #11) > Karolin, you're the boss. > Do not feel you have to push this if it will disrupt the release. Right! I am sorry for the hassle... I did not mean to call for a special exception. But thanks for pushing the harmless little feature anyhow! > Note in my comment assigning it to you I mentioned it should go > into 3.6. I didn't say 3.6.0 (it could have meant 3.6.1 :-). Hehe. Always leave a back door open, right? ... ;-) But frankly, I have to disagree here: We should not allow any new features in 3.6.X after 3.6.0 is out, either. If we add new features then, we should add them now, and if it is too late then it is simply too late. But a bugfix release is not for new features. Just my 2 cents... Cheers - Michael
That's a nice idea (no new features in a .x release stream) but doesn't work in practice. Our major releases are too far apart for our OEM's to be able to cope with this. For example we will need full SeBackup/SeRestore functionality in the 3.6.x release stream - can't wait until 4.0. The only think I promise in .x release stream is not to modify the VFS. Jeremy.
Yeah, the difference between theory and practice... *sigh* :-)