ready to merge trunk over SAMBA_3_0 ?

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> One advantage would be that we could just copy 
> trunk to SAMBA_3_2, and avoid all this problem about
> overwriting the SAMBA_3_0 branch.

3.2 is a bad idea.  I'm sorry I ever brought it up.

But I sense something else at play here but I can't read you.
Why are you so worried about the merge now when you never
have been in the past?  What is different about *this*
time?

I've committed myself to do whatever testing is needed
to ensure that the upgrade to 3.0.22 goes smoothly.
And we are not going to let ourselves be held back because
we are not confident is our past testing procedures.
We are going to fix the process and not avoid it
but going to 3.2.0 so that "Hey!  It's a .0 release.
What did you expect?"

>> And let's face, if the linux kernel folks can get by
>> without 2.7, we can manage the changes needed without
>> a 3.2.
> 
> I'm not convinced the situations are comparable, 
> but anyway...

What does that mean?  What exactly is the problem here?
I'm really surprised that this has become such a big deal.






cheers, jerry
=====================================================================
I live in a Reply-to-All world.               -----------------------
Samba                                    ------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris                         -----------  http://www.centeris.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD4TB6IR7qMdg1EfYRAuxrAJ9bK2D3Qbe/wQ56WgUrGPgsrDmF7ACfYerj
On/tYa72k28fbety3p8NQJU=
=8K7x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----