[Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.0pre2

Guenther Deschner gd at samba.org
Tue Mar 15 04:41:38 MDT 2011

On 03/09/2011 08:48 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 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.

Absolutely correct, I also strongely vote for a re-sync with master. I 
have much more trust in make test actually doing a much better job of 
testing and realizing failures now. And as we have not arrived at the RC 
stage yet, I think a re-sync is absolutely valid.


Günther Deschner                    GPG-ID: 8EE11688
Red Hat                         gdeschner at redhat.com
Samba Team                              gd at samba.org

More information about the samba-technical mailing list