[Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.0pre2

[Karolin Seeger]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:43:36AM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> 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
> >>>>> 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.
> 
> +1
> 
> metze

Okay, I will do the merge tomorrow (if I don't see any vetos ;-).

Thanks,
Karo

-- 
Samba			http://www.samba.org
SerNet			http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP			http://www.sambaxp.org