On (02/03/16 15:13), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 03/02/2016 03:07 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (02/03/16 15:02), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>On 03/02/2016 02:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>On (02/03/16 13:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>On 03/02/2016 01:10 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>On (02/03/16 13:02), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>On 03/02/2016 12:53 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>>On (02/03/16 12:48), Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 03/01/2016 03:54 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>I added one more similar patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sss_idmap_calculate_range can accept domain SID or
range identifier on
>>>>>>>>>its input. Previous parameter name was misleading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ack to both. They can sure be squashed before pushing but
I don't care.
>>>>>>>I miss a link here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway I would like to see a Sumit opinin about renaming
variables.
>>>>>>>Because name of variables is one of hard things problems in
IT
>>>>>>>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Might we could do an all hands meeting,
>>>>>>because we really don't want to underestimate such important
change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>If the patch is not important then it does not make a sense to push
it.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW You introduced one of bad argument names in the recent
>>>>>commit 8babbeee01e67893af4828ddfc922ecac0be4197
>>>>
>>>>Sure, I did that and now I see that it would be nice to use a different
name.
>>>>
>>>Sumit is fine with changes.
>>>Would you be so kind and could you send squased patch which
>>>we can push.
>>
>>If you insist on squashing the patches then please do it while pushing it.
>>
>I would but could you help me with commit mesage?
>I'm sorry but for me it's the same problem as name of variables
>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html
> "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and
> naming things."
> Phil Karlto
>
>I would appreciate if autor of the patch could do it.
>
>LS
>
Lukas can you just push the patches as they are?
I would like but there is issue
with separating changes to patches.
In general it make sense to have small patches. And each patch
should do one thing e.g. do not mix unrelated coding style with change of
logic. However if TWO patches do the same it does not make a sense to separate
them. In samba, they separate this if the change is in different part of code
e.g. ldb, tdm, talloc, samba3 ... The reason is bacporting of such changes.
But in our case the change is in one module.
Sumit and Pavel ACKed them independently and neither of them
expressed
the desire of having them squashed.
Neither of them expresed that it's the best
idea ever to have changes in two
patches.
Please update patch and I will send a link to CI because neither of reviewers
did it.
LS