ABI stability of internal DBs

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:12:05PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > This I think is perfectly reasonable, and is the
> > level of stability we (unofficially) strive for
> > today, and doesn't add any extra burdon to our
> > testing resources.
> > 
> > Thanks Simo - I think this is a very reasonable
> > proposal and I'd like to standardize on this
> > level of "stability" so long as everyone else
> > agrees. Votes ?
> 
> Who watches the checkins? What if you detect an smb2 oplock
> bug in 3.6.0 that requires a format change in one of the
> internal messages? Make the users wait for 3.7.0 instead of
> 3.6.1? If you're fine with that, then we can make that
> promise.

Yeah, I think so. Keeping stability between minor
versions is a reasonable goal IMHO. I've only ever
seen one bug that would have triggered this condition
(the tdb update where the hash function was changed
due to a signed -> unsigned change).

DB format updates inside a minor release version
is a scummy thing to do to users (IMHO :-) and we
should really try not to do it.

Jeremy.