should we rename cifs.spnego to cifs.upcall in v3.2

[simo]

On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 06:25 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> We recently committed a patch to v3-3-test to rename the "cifs.spnego"
> program to the more generically named "cifs.upcall". I'm trying to
> decide whether this change is also suitable for the v3-2-* branches.
> 
> On the one hand, this is a significant change that affects both users
> and those people packaging this program. On the other hand, this
> program is fairly new, not a lot of people are using it yet, and making
> this change now might mean less pain in the long run.
> 
> Anyone have thoughts?
> 
> (For the record, Simo has already stated that he thinks we should go
> ahead and change this for v3.2 as well).

Yes I confirm I support the change asap.
It is better to have some very little pain for the very few people that
use it today, than a greater pain later on.

The reasoning is that now you will hit a lot less people, and the few
using it are probably technically enough not to be too surprised (and
they probably also follow this list and development and will be not
surprised at all).

But if you let the old name settle down in 3.2 (considering debian
stable will have it for years most probably) and it becomes a widespread
used name then we will have a much higher impact if we change it in
3.3).

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <simo at redhat.com>