Next stable version of Samba.

[Mike Westkamper]

>From a (ab)user and erstwhile lurker hereabouts...

>From my understanding the nest stable release will include a lot of features that
makes SAMBA an excellent platform for enterprise networking. The following release
will likely include the domain controller and attendant pieces. If these are facts
and it is the intent to provide a widely used platform then a couple of marketing
factors might be considered.

Make the next release 3.0. A little PR on the .ORG stating its readiness for
prime-time. A list of bullets with the things IS managers will like to see.

When the domain controller aspects are ready, make it 4.0. This is nice number.
Sells well. You will need to upgrade the server to fibrechannel to handle the
downloads.

:Mike Westkamper
:WEI Inc.

Kevin Colby wrote:

> Not numbering the branches is fine, but then we cannot send out
> documentation that refers to them as such.  This goes not just
> for TNG, but any "unreleased" versions, as the "2.0.8" vs. "2.2"
> points out.
>
>         - Kevin Colby
>           kevinc at grainsystems.com
>
> Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> >
> > > -----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 ends up being superceded by a superior branch prior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.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > > (I hope someone is still reading this thread.)
> > [snip]
> >
> > 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.
> >         Greg