; a=shortlog; h=refs/heads/struct_stat

Karolin Seeger ks at
Fri May 15 09:02:25 GMT 2009

Hi Volker,
hi Tim,

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:28:13PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> Well, I don't really have a good technical argument for
> getting it into 3.4. My only point is that I will definitely
> have to maintain a 3.4 with that patch for at least a few
> years. I can certainly do that, but I would prefer to not
> having a patch of that size in a custom branch :-)

I can't rate whether this patch is very risky or not. If it's not risky at
all, I would agree to put it into v3-4-test as it changes many lines and
backporting might become difficult at some point. Volker, could you please
rate if it's risky or not?

Of course Tim is right, v3-4-test is already feature freezed, but in this
case an exception might make sense supposing the patch is very well tested
and the risk is very, very low.

What do you think?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list