Cutoff for major changes to 3.0.26 is scheduled for Monday, June 4

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

tridge at samba.org wrote:

> I also wonder if we should consider using a 'precious' 
> minor release number at some point? For example, once
> we consider the clustering code in Samba3 to be production
> ready, perhaps it should be called 3.1.0 not 3.0.XX ? :-)

We've discussed this a bit in the past.  Actually beginning
with the 3.0.15/3.0.20 jump.  We event tried 3.1.0 dev release.
Right now the major advantages of continuing with with the
upgrade release (nump the revision number) and letter (bug fix)
releases is the branch maintenance and vendor pickup.

I think we've found out (as have the kernel devs) that
continuing in the same tree can support both rapid development
and stable releases.

So I'm very happy with the current system.  But I'm open to
other ideas.  We cannot however bump the minor number just due
to large changes since we would end up changing the minor
release number every time we released. :-)





cheers, jerry


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGZBU+IR7qMdg1EfYRAuqzAJ9Whxd9PpDeNYFffsh2f29LLZDcyQCfVvC2
Pf6P7eRAsFQaHHgnwdyZfPo=
=/TKh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----