Should we do a alpha2 now?

simo idra at
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
> matter,
> 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
> the
> 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.


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <ssorce at>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list