ABI stability of internal DBs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 10:52 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:01:56AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > I'm not sure we need to be so formal on this. The people
> > who care about this watch the code *very* closely (hi there
> > metze & vl :-) and anyone changing this usually discusses
> > it with them before pushing any patches.
> 
> From my standpoint we can promise to do our best. But giving
> a fixed guarantee that we will never break rolling code
> upgradeability within a 3.x version is a very strong
> statement that can hurt us badly. It will eventually put a
> huge workload on us for when we find a bug that requires
> data fields to change. 

Perhaps this is a solution:  We make this promise, but make it clear
that we only make this promise one release at a time.  

The clustered case is a very small but important part of our user base,
but one who should (because they care about stability) read our
WHATSNEW, either themselves or by proxy with their support vendor. 

Rather than break our promise, we simply regretfully decline to make it
for a particular upgrade, and make this clear in the WHATSNEW. 

> But if you are 100% certain that these bugs never happen,
> I'm fine with your guarantee.

I don't think we can ever be 100% certain of anything in this world. :-)

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/20100709/4cb83172/attachment.pgp>