ABI stability of internal DBs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 09:10 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 08:08:55AM -0400, simo wrote:
> > 
> > FWIW this goes way beyond what I proposed. I proposed only that 3.5.1 be
> > compatible , in the cluster case, with 3.5.X.
> > 
> > I think it is ok to ask the cluter to be shut down and restarted if you
> > go 3.6.x
> 
> 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 ?

I'm a little concerned that 'silence means violent agreement', because
I'm still a bit worried about the cost, but I guess the restricted
nature of patches to the release series should mean we don't change
things too franticly here. 

In terms of what we promise to our cluster users, should we just promise
and test an upgrade from the exact previous version (but deliver broader
compatibility in practice)?

Finally, how are we going to mark and version these structures, so that
it's unambiguous as to what structures are part of both the long-term
and short-term ABIs here?

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100708/009a704d/attachment.pgp>