[Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.0pre2
abartlet at samba.org
Wed Mar 9 00:48:21 MST 2011
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 14:17 +0100, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:08:50PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > As I have the impression that at least master is way better tested and
> > > at least used sporadically by developers (unlike 3.6), I strongly vote
> > > for option b). But its not up to me to make that decision and then again
> > > I can fully understand anyone voting against.
> > I've tried to backport my endpoint mapper changes to v3-6-test but there where
> > a lot of changes in common code by Andrew Bartlet which haven't been
> > backported to v3-6-test. There is more stuff like the merge of the debug code
> > which isn't in v3-6-test too.
> > So my question is, could we rebranch again?
> yes, we can! ;-)
> Do other team members have any objections?
I support a re-merge.
In particular, a re-merge would give us a 'make test' that actually
checks for failure, and (gd could clarify) the possibility of a waf
build of Samba3 that can correctly include system headers for
tdb/talloc/etc and produce substantially smaller released binaries than
the autoconf build.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
More information about the samba-technical