[linux-cifs-client] Re: should we rename cifs.spnego to cifs.upcall in v3.2

Q (Igor Mammedov) niallain at gmail.com
Sat Aug 16 20:55:30 GMT 2008

+1 for renaming.

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, simo <idra at samba.org> wrote:
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-cifs-client mailing list
> linux-cifs-client at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-cifs-client

More information about the samba-technical mailing list