branch proposal

Gerald (Jerry) Carter jerry at
Thu Jul 13 23:39:42 GMT 2006

Hash: SHA1

Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> So why isn't trunk the development branch, and SAMBA_3_0 
> the holding place for the current release?  I'm lost...

Because everyone is accustomed to the real 3.0 development
going on in SAMBA_3_0.  Since SAMBA_4_0 has its own branch,
trunk is basically abandoned.  I don't believe there is any
need for us to have to check into 2 branches with every
change to SAMBA_3_0.

> Plus, we just lost the build farm benefit, until someone 
> does the work to tell all the machines to
> build something else, plus updates the
> GUI, and unpacked etc...

Why are we building trunk in the build farm anyways?
trunk and SAMBA_3_0 are always a copy of each other
except for a few weeks before release.

But it seems that Coverity only checks trunk.  This is
a mess.  We are creating twice as much work per checkin
for ourselves.  We lose history when we cut over.
let's don't be a slave to tools.  We should be to
adapt our development ot fit our needs and replace
tools when needed.

cheers, jerry
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE -


More information about the samba-technical mailing list