Head stability [Was Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] Fix Name mangling in HEAD]]

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:06:48PM +0000, David Lee wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2002, Simo Sorce wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > Please Andrew, HEAD is an alpha version, if we do not experiment there
> > where shoud we? If I give an option (that was there in the first
> > commits) who would have used it?
> 
> I'm suddenly getting worried...
> 
> I fully appreciate that HEAD is developmental, and so non-production. 
> Thus any of us "end-users" who choose to checkout from it do so on a
> strictly "own risk" basis, and that we should not put it anywhere near
> production.  Fine.
> 
> Nevertheless, I had been under the impression, subject to the above
> caveats, that HEAD was basically intended to be heading towards stability,
> whose innovation aspects would be reasonably tested.  So that, although
> there might be temporary glitches, problems and inconsistencies, it would
> still be reasonably useable by those of us own-risk, read-only, end-user,
> development folk. 
> 
> But Simo's comment implies that HEAD may be a place for experiment by the
> Samba Team.  Where does "reasonably tested innovation" end, and
> "experiment" begin?  I would have thought that "experiment" basically
> belongs in a non-HEAD branch or personal sandpit (just as any of us
> non-Team folk would do), with HEAD being reserved for stuff that has
> already basically had its principles peer-reviewed. 

I agree with Simo here. HEAD needs to be a place where innovative
new ideas can be tested. We can't ensure the development branch
remains stable at all times (although it should always compile :-).

However, Andrew is also correct in wanting stability in this
code.

My preferred solution. We should create a SAMBA_3_0 branch
which Andrew can ensure remains stable whilst HEAD allows
the kind of changes Simo needs.

We will need to do this as we move to an official 3.0 release
anyway.

Jeremy.