[Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.0pre2
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
metze at samba.org
Tue Mar 15 04:43:36 MDT 2011
Am 15.03.2011 11:41, schrieb Guenther Deschner:
> 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
>>>>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the samba-technical