svn commit: samba r23120 - in branches/SAMBA_3_0_25/source: include libsmb

derrell.lipman at derrell.lipman at
Thu May 24 19:17:34 GMT 2007

"Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <jerry at> writes:

> Hey Derrell,
>>> I've already cut the tarball and Fedora RPMs.  We'll 
>>> catch this for 3.0.25b.
>> This is *really* frustrating.  Having *THREE* trees to 
>> have to check in to, with some of them temporarily
>> "locked" makes code management completely unreasonable.
>> This change was made weeks ago.
> But *you* did not merge it into SAMBA_3_0_25.  This has
> been a long standing policy and IIRC not the first time that
> you failed to merge your own fixes.

Actually, although it's certainly possible that I missed some, I don't
believe I have missed any in the last year or more.  (Jeremy took some
that I had intentionally not checked into the soon-to-be-released
branch, but that's different.)

> I've mailed the list
> several times when the release branch was sync'd with
> SAMBA_3_0_25.  You have to realize that if you don't check
> you code it, it would not be in the 25a release.

Yes, it's my fault.  I'm not debating that.  What caused it, though, was...

> btw...the only tree that is actually locked is
> SAMBA_3_0_RELEASE.  The SAMBA_3_0_25 may be temporarily
> frozen but what that means is that I'm not pulling in
> any more changes from that branch currently.

... my misunderstanding of this.  I made the change in my local tree but
I didn't check the change in to SAMBA_3_0_25 when I checked it into the
other two branches because you had said that SAMBA_3_0_25 was frozen and
I took that to mean that you did not want any checkins to that branch.
I now understand that frozen doesn't tell me not to check things in,
just that you will ignore those checkins for the release you are
currently working on.

>> I was awaiting release of 3.0.25a with these changes, 
>> and this is going to completely screw me up.  (You
>> said you'd be cutting tomorrow and asked for testing
>> today, which is what I did, and which is how I found
>> this.)
> ok.  Fine.  I'll take it.

Thank you!

> In the future, please merge your own changes.  The strategy is
> straightforward:

> SAMBA_3_0_25 		-> Samba 3.0.25 series
> SAMBA_3_0_26		-> Samba 3.0.26 series
> SAMBA_3_0		-> research or works-in-progress
> I'm not planning any bulk merges between SAMBA_3_0 and
> SAMBA_3_0_26.  I might do some house cleaning but don't
> depend on it for inclusion in the release.

I understand.  It's a royal PITA, but I understand.  And I do not
believe there are any current discrepancies in code that I've worked on
between the three branches.  Everything should, I think, be in sync.

Thanks again!


More information about the samba-technical mailing list