Should we do a alpha2 now?
idra at samba.org
Fri Dec 7 22:47:42 GMT 2007
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 09:28 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> That could work, but the point I see in a release is in helping people
> find working snapshots, not just snapshots.
Yes, I said marked working snapshots. The auto snapshotting is just a
convenience, when you are close to a state like this one, you can
inspect the most recent snapshot and decide to mark it as good and make
a quick snapshot release.
The problem I have with calling alpha2 (or 1 or 3) the current code is
that some of it is basically stable quality code, much higher than
alpha, and some of it (if we keep targeting a full featured CIFS and
logon server) simply does not exist (see printing code).
So I am un-comfortable with calling it alpha or beta or any classic
attribute of code that is considered feature complete and just need
polishing for shipping.
> For the past while, the
> tree has often not built for a good portion of the day. I'm not happy
> about that, but I also see particular value in marking some stable
> points along the way, if only for external impressions (which do
> even if we hoped they would not).
Indeed make sense, but these seem more suited to "lightweight" releases,
without the fanfare of an alpha IMO.
> Finally, I'm writing up an article for a magazine, and it's becoming
> obvious that pointing users to the unknown future (in particular if
> python code changes the provision process) for a howto section just
> won't fly.
Sure, but does that warrant an "alpha" release?
You can also simply point to samba4-alpha-20071212.tar.gz release and
accomplish exactly the same goal.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <ssorce at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical