ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
I applied the patches and built the SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10164975 It worked, so ACK..
Do you want to push the patches and release the tarball?
On (19/06/15 14:26), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
I applied the patches and built the SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10164975 It worked, so ACK..
Do you want to push the patches and release the tarball?
Here is an updated patch set. I tested it with ldap, krb5, proxy and ad provider. and there were no failure. Except of missing features :-) But I wanted to backport only crashes and bug-fixes.
If we do not want to include patch with negroup leak then we can release latest 1.11 version.
LS
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/06/15 14:26), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
I applied the patches and built the SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10164975 It worked, so ACK..
Do you want to push the patches and release the tarball?
Here is an updated patch set. I tested it with ldap, krb5, proxy and ad provider. and there were no failure. Except of missing features :-) But I wanted to backport only crashes and bug-fixes.
If we do not want to include patch with negroup leak then we can release latest 1.11 version.
I would like to include the netgroups fix and also 52e3ee5c5ff2c5a per Timo's request on IRC.
I looked at the patches' description and the list looks OK to me. I didn't look at the code at all to be honest, did you have to change a lot of patches so that they apply?
Howard, does Suse carry any patches atop 1.11.x that you would like us to include so that you don't have to keep them?
Hello Jakub.
Thank you!
As of now SSSD is pretty much the most stable software I'm working with, so no extra patches from me at this moment.
Have a nice day!
Kind regards, Howard
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/06/15 14:26), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
I applied the patches and built the SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10164975 It worked, so ACK..
Do you want to push the patches and release the tarball?
Here is an updated patch set. I tested it with ldap, krb5, proxy and ad provider. and there were no failure. Except of missing features :-) But I wanted to backport only crashes and bug-fixes.
If we do not want to include patch with negroup leak then we can release latest 1.11 version.
I would like to include the netgroups fix and also 52e3ee5c5ff2c5a per Timo's request on IRC.
I looked at the patches' description and the list looks OK to me. I didn't look at the code at all to be honest, did you have to change a lot of patches so that they apply?
Howard, does Suse carry any patches atop 1.11.x that you would like us to include so that you don't have to keep them?
On (09/02/16 07:54), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/06/15 14:26), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
I applied the patches and built the SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10164975 It worked, so ACK..
Do you want to push the patches and release the tarball?
Here is an updated patch set. I tested it with ldap, krb5, proxy and ad provider. and there were no failure. Except of missing features :-) But I wanted to backport only crashes and bug-fixes.
If we do not want to include patch with negroup leak then we can release latest 1.11 version.
I would like to include the netgroups fix and also 52e3ee5c5ff2c5a per Timo's request on IRC.
I didn't try to backport they look simple. I think we can push them after this big patchset which is tested.
I would rather retest one more time with extra 2 patches because it would be the latest release and want to be sure we do not break anything.
LS
On (09/02/16 07:54), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (19/06/15 14:26), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We have 19 patches in 1.11 branch on top of latest release (1.11.7) I went through bugs filed against 1.11 branch and filter crashes and the most important bugs. Attached are cherrry-picked patches from 1.12/master So we can release the latest 1.11 version. It will be just a bug-fix release. So some conservative distribution can use it or in another words. we don't want have 1.11 branch neither in unreleased not in unclosed state :-)
BTW I test packages with LDAP KRB5 and AD test. Of course there are any regressions because it is a bug fix only release.
LS
I applied the patches and built the SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10164975 It worked, so ACK..
Do you want to push the patches and release the tarball?
Here is an updated patch set. I tested it with ldap, krb5, proxy and ad provider. and there were no failure. Except of missing features :-) But I wanted to backport only crashes and bug-fixes.
If we do not want to include patch with negroup leak then we can release latest 1.11 version.
I would like to include the netgroups fix and also 52e3ee5c5ff2c5a per Timo's request on IRC.
I looked at the patches' description and the list looks OK to me. I didn't look at the code at all to be honest, did you have to change a lot of patches so that they apply?
sssd-1-11: * f4b0442bef99138a101e7b0a122117dacbfdbc87 * e46ee9a77a03cb9a0c3d17c62cf37e354fb25a1d * 1916410739d8096a52c1ff990bb977322ead6ef6 * 96ad95f0f400ae555909328f179a9d1036d1e0db * 91a6cdabd25f2e2e27a591ea02885fb8b1996216 * 17191a02c79959db7819b5293c32533c28081b4a * 7f736351092a153f8f877a6973b1fd8107cb8341 * 1c8b34b035daf1f0ca321e58d440939a351b8568 * 1525b4d99aa300b180059f055fa6feb854950970 * 2dad4fa96b449df7ae1b0bf4a04496dc64e23a4c * cf81e43c0d6cf06a1875af9f5fc843a063b87722 * 79c0159e7173bf738f296d66e3d493cf5a64ee3c * e4bba978499e17bd776cc7d5104aa60c6f8a003d * 947ade0814e10db7c1a4379332b081fbf029784e * f2bb2c60d23548982b230f8ddb12dd71ba124dd6 * 73b68bb828c09fc8ac15584a7e48dfac0ebd3a92 * c4dfffcb6b5d7611400d73a8917f27a6cee21b6e * fcb0280cd53d6352cb375219108c8ebe14535dfa * 7d63f9c764a2e608a2ea78651356246c7504015e * 8c2cbe4cbe71d78f048dc1a4a83c160471494388 * 58190a0d9e47220e8c32b610f650b174c58ca181 * 2ba6c837d2e4932becbf64aa8a58046fe63ae9cb * be7685e6b20550495d24c3d48159042242626b6b * 8488fbadeba254a989a3ed703c12abc8cc83f6d1 * fd2ff8fc8c87bc604768084de382420bbd6cca9a * e19c67ab46481870291a7d1a883b01707a95839a * 31e351ca0dab4bde31e935c37a24c33a32946dc7 * 95fd266d0af8d5229af88966e523d2adb52c014c * 392371cc9ee27d274ced6fae357a9416d6cd3afe * 985e95db4bf045e0d7ea96844b57ed62dfec7e3a * 50ecac0266bba0cfd40dc4d967465389a2f8af11 * 0ffc58e2407f1756b0c09fe31ecd21a75e88e833
LS
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Howard Guo -
Jakub Hrozek -
Lukas Slebodnik