[Proposal] Samba 3.2.0 to replace 3.0.22
abartlet at samba.org
Sat Jan 14 20:53:30 GMT 2006
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 19:16 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:57:39PM -0600, Gerald Carter wrote:
> > James, from the viewpoint of a vendor and off the record,
> > how bad would 3.0 and 3.2 make your life?
> From the viewpoint of an operating system vendor we have to ensure to
> provide an as smouth as possible update path for any Samba release.
> And nowadays our customers and partners expect to get the latest stable
> Samba release for our products. Therefore it doesn't differ if we name
> it 3.0 or 3.2.
> As we plan to integrate several huger pieces I prefer the 3.2 approach.
I really think that Samba 3.2 is a far better name, given the volume of
change. It also allows us to change some security defaults etc.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060115/85ed2df0/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical