Next stable version of Samba.
GLeblanc at cu-portland.edu
Fri May 19 22:24:20 GMT 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Colby [mailto:kevinc at grainsystems.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 2:56 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM
> Subject: Re: Next stable version of Samba.
> 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 ends up being superceded by a superior branch prior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.)
Yep, still reading. Personally, I don't think that WAY WAY WAY out
alpha/beta code should be given release numbers, since it may or may not
keep that schedule. I'd call the HEAD code HEAD, and the TNG code TNG. If
you want to get into multiple revision numbers, then I'd make it follow the
guidelines in the Software Release HOWTO. Now that I think about it some
more, since Samba tends to have multiple development branches, it doesn't
make a lot of sense to number any of them, except occasionally, like the
change that Jeremy proposed. Depending on how confident the Samba Team is
in the stability, it might be worth a few 2.1.x releases, with a fixed
feature set, to ensure stability, leading up to a 2.2.x release, which would
begin another stable branch like 2.0.x was.
More information about the samba-ntdom