Depricate auth parameters in 3.6, remove in master?

[Michael Adam]

Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 05:27:08PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 07:48 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:09:05PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > I would like to remove in master (for the 4.0 release) the following
> > > > parameters, and to give our users fair warning, I would like these
> > > > marked as deprecated in 3.6:
> > > 
> > > Do you really want that? It would make life miserable for
> > > the S3 developers to keep a 3.x release stream going.
> > 
> > The reason I asked was to find this out.  As I asked Jeremy on IRC: when
> > will Samba 3.6 really branch?  It isn't my intention to make 3.6
> > development difficult, but similarly if I am to help prepare for a 4.0
> > release, there needs to be a time when these changes are acceptable in
> > master.  
> 
> The next question is: What will the S3 developers work from
> after 3.6 is released. If we fundamentally change source3 in
> master, the only choice will be to work mainly in
> v3-7-test branched from v3-6-test.

To my understanding, the plan that we discussed at sambaXP 2010
and confirmed at the SNIA SDC 2010 was to try continue doing
releases from master until we are really ready for 4.0.

The _hope_ we had and expressed was that 3.6 would be the last
major 3.X release, but in my opinion this is uncertain at the
moment, so I would strongly object any such changes to master
that only touch source3 code and are targeted towards 4.0
exclusively. I understand the argument that the removal of these
parameters in master in order to merge more code (auth...) but
I think it is premature. We should either defer this until we
are sure there will be no 3.7 or find a way to merge the auth
code without removing the parameters. This might require some
preliminary work separating code paths but the best way is not
always the easiest. And we have to make sure to keep 3.X in
a good state, making our user community happy (or at least not
more unhappy). And I would prefer doing this from master, and
I thought that was also common understanding.

I do not mean that we shouldn't pursue the goal of a soon 4.0
but why should we do such non-critical changes now? This will only
increase the breach between s3 and s4 development (again) that we
actually wanted to reduce.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20110128/7927fd9d/attachment.pgp>