Next stable version of Samba.

Kevin Colby kevinc at
Fri May 19 21:57:04 GMT 2000

No, my point was that if TNG is assigned to 4.0, and TNG
ends up being superceded by a superior branch prior
to its official release, that next branch could be given
"5.0" anyway.  The fact that "4.0" was never an officially
supported release would be irrelevant.  Any documentation
referring to "4.0" would still be valid.

If you don't do this, then either TNG cannot ever be given
numbers in the main release schedule prior to "official"
support, or you will again have this issue of documentation
that refers to a nonexistant release.

(I hope someone is still reading this thread.)

	- Kevin Colby
	  kevinc at

Paul J Collins wrote:
> Er, my interpretation of your comment was that Mozilla had jumped from
> 4 to 6 with no version 5 *at all*; did I misunderstand?
> Paul.
> --
> Paul Collins <sneakums at> - - - - - [ A&P,a&f ]
>  GPG: 0A49 49A9 2932 0EE5 89B2  9EE0 3B65 7154 8131 1BCD
>  PGP: 88BA 2393 8E3C CECF E43A  44B4 0766 DD71 04E5 962C
> "Linux: it's just this operating system, you know?"

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list