Should we do a alpha2 now?
abartlet at samba.org
Fri Dec 7 22:56:01 GMT 2007
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 17:47 -0500, simo wrote:
> 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.
Well, the time for that complaint was when we first listed the features
of an alpha, quite some time ago. I don't think, having made alpha
releases, that we should start going back to 'tpX'...
> > 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.
Given the situation, I think we need all the fanfare we can get.
Naturally we actually need developers, both on and off the team, to have
time and interest in Samba4, but if I can't get that, I'll take a little
> > 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.
I would rather make the release. It's not like Samba4 takes the long
and involved process that Samba 3.2.0 seems to be under to get the
release out. It takes about a week, end to end, most of which is spent
in valuable debugging of issues found outside the testsuite.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- 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/20071208/43ce07a7/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical