To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

Ira Cooper samba at
Wed Nov 23 06:48:56 MST 2011

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 08:47 +0200, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > Hi Tridge,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 05:32, Andrew Tridgell <tridge at> wrote:
> > >> Rightly or wrongly Samba4 is seen as the replacement
> > >> for Samba3. If you ship what you have now you put the
> > >> Team members who support OEM fileservers in an incredibly
> > >> difficult position w.r.t. marketing and communications
> > >> with our customers, not to mention the Linux distros.
> > >
> > > no, their existing setups just keep working. It is only if they decide
> > > to setup an AD DC that things change.
> > And that's what OEM people would do -- provide AD DC together with a
> > fileserver on a single server -- which is causing issues here.
> > Can we have a reasonable strategy for the case considering this single
> > server setup?
> The strategy here is to complete the task.  I've personally advocated
> this to every Samba-based NAS vendor I have met, and remain committed to
> this goal.
> I'm just suggesting that we also release a 4.0 before we get to that
> point, and then release Samba 4.1 when we are happy with the cut-over to
> the smbd-based file server (probably with other features and backed by
> the experience of the Samba 4.0 users).
> We have much to be proud of in Samba 4.0.  The OEMs you speak of will
> get the integrated AD DC if they want it, and will get it no faster or
> slower than would otherwise be the case.  In the meantime, some of our
> other users will also get a Samba AD DC release.
> Andrew Bartlett
> --
> Andrew Bartlett                      
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team 

>From someone who is "outside the loop.":

I see one critical unaddressed question: Is the "source3" based fileserver
ready to ship a new release?  Take a look at how many times it release
blocked trying to get 3.6 out.  And that's no slam on Jeremy, Volker or
Karolin.  I appreciate the devotion to quality they showed getting it done.
 But I realize that it is a non-trivial effort for the team to push that
component out the door.  Realize the next release commits the file server
to a working SMB 2.0 implementation, and the blocking could get worse.

The fact that, that question has gone unasked and unaddressed worries me
greatly, from the outside as a "pseudo" OEM.

There are plenty of gnattish questions I'd have for Jeremy/Volker about
what is going to be supported for 4.0.  Like CTDB etc... :)

It isn't just the AD components that need to ship.  It is the entire


More information about the samba-technical mailing list