major architectural "split"

[Andrew Tridgell]

> that's just the way i work (commit 4 to 8 times a day) and i rely on you
> nice people to give me feedback on things i forgot (thank you! thank you!)

but sometime, eventually, we have to do a STABLE release. 

> i really, really do not want to get into the situation where here we are
> one year later and the development branch still hasn't been merged with
> the release branch.

the development branch turned into a release branch well over a year
ago. Since then we have worked to try to make that release branch
stable. It has taken us this long (and lots of rewrites) to get there.

You don't like doing the work to make code stable. Fine. But please
don't be too critical about those of us who do try to make the damn
stuff stable. It might not be as sexy but it does take a lot of work.

I am also pretty convinced that no matter when we decide to try to
merge your development code in, by the time we are done you will once
again be complaining that we shouldn't be using that old crud and
should instead be using your all-new way of doing things whatever that
might be.

what worries me is when we split off the rpc code and decide on a
protocol you will then start rewriting it before we get stable to use
xml/corba/foobar/sysv or some other weird way of talking, and you will
just go and start stomping on all our stable smbd code to re-make it
in whatever way you like. I just don't trust you in the branch that we
are aiming to make stable, you don't care enough about stability.