Re: CVS update: samba/source

Christopher R. Hertel (crh@NTS.Umn.EDU)
Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:35:43 -0500 (CDT)

From:	"Christopher R. Hertel" <crh@NTS.Umn.EDU>
Message-Id: <199804100235.VAA00286@unet.unet.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: CVS update: samba/source
To:	tridge@samba.anu.edu.au
Date:	Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:35:43 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <19980410012032Z12641768-461+813@samba.anu.edu.au> from "Andrew Tridgell" at Apr 10, 98 11:20:15 am

Ahh... Okay, *that's* a reason. I was thinking with my 'technical' hat
on, not my 'public relations' hat.

It's already done, though.

Chris -)-----

>
> Chris wrote:
> > On the one hand, I agree 100% that all warnings should be dealt with. On
> > the other hand, if it's a *warning*, it's meant to call your attention to
> > a *potential* problem, not an actual problem. Dealing with the warning
> > does not necessarily mean 'making it go away'. The real problem is the
> > lack of code to use the ModuleID, but that is not an immediate problem.
>
> I agree with Jeremy that we should try to get rid of all warnings, not
> because warnings are errors (they mostly aren't) but because when we
> ship something that produces a warning on a common platform (especialy
> Linux) we get a pile of worried bug reports from people. Some people
> even say "oh no, I better not install this, it had a warning".
>
> It is easier to remove the warnings than to educate people on which
> warnings matter and which don't.
>
> Cheers, Andrew
>

-- 
Christopher R. Hertel -)-----                   University of Minnesota
crh@nts.umn.edu              Networking and Telecommunications Services