Next stable version of Samba.

[Kevin Colby]

This situation is unfortunate.  While I am in favor of the "2.2"
designation, this points out how important careful versioning
is--even in devlopment releases.  I must admit that I find the
2.1/HEAD/TNG thing a bit disorienting myself.  I hope that soon
(in part with this 2.2?) the branches can be better defined and,
of course, eventually merged.

As always, thanks to everyone for the great job thusfar.

	- Kevin Colby
	  kevinc at grainsystems.com



John Weber wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I bought the book "Using Samba" because it says "Officially adopted by the
> Samba team" on the cover and it's O'Reilly. I wanted to figure out how to
> authenticate NT logons. I spent several days thrashing around the samba
> site trying to find version 2.1 as mentioned in the book. I eventually
> wound up playing with TNG and only now in these last few emails on this
> list did I ever see that 2.1 meant "the development version".
> 
> I like what I've found now, but it was a rough entry.
> 
> John S. Weber
> 
> System Administrator
> Center for Computational Mathematics
> University of Colorado at Denver
> Phone: (303)556-5394 Fax: (303)556-8550
> jweber at math.cudenver.edu
> http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jweber
> 
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul J Collins [mailto:pjdc at eircom.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:25 PM
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM
> > > Subject: Re: Next stable version of Samba.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>> "Gregory" == Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc at cu-portland.edu> writes:
> > >
> > >     >> "You will need to use at least Samba 2.1 to ensure that PDC
> > >     >> functionality for Windows NT clients is present..."
> > >
> > >     Gregory> So, uhm, how did the Samba Team let this go out?  To the
> > >     Gregory> best of my knowledge, there has never been an officially
> > >     Gregory> released "Samba 2.1", so it seems that it's kind of a
> > >     Gregory> strange statement.
> > >
> > > Samba 2.1 has always been taken to refer to "the development
> > > version".  You are correct, there was no 2.1 release.
> >
> > Sorry to do this, but...  If it's taken to refer to "the development
> > version", and there's something in books like this that state that "Samba
> > 2.1" isn't released, and that the release schedule isn't set (at the time of
> > printing), then the Samba Team should have no qualms about invalidating this
> > version reference.  Since it's meant to refer to "the development version",
> > I'd say that we shouldn't have any qualms about invalidating this statement
> > in the book "Using Samba".  Maybe that's just me...
> >       Greg
> >