To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

[Luk Claes]

On 11/24/2011 05:03 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 18:05 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:

>> I am all for releasing a 4.0 soon, as I have mentionend more
>> than once in the past (since more than a year now) but IMHO,
>> we should fix the integration of the components before the
>> 4.0 release. The discussions of how to do this has been going on
>> since several years now and has been deferred again and again.

> I also think it is vitally important that we provide our production file
> server under the name and with the behaviour that users have expected it
> to have for quite some time now.  
> 
> However, in integrating all of Samba's components, I have found that the
> 'simple' task of integrating Samba3 and Samba4 has been anything less
> than simple.  As we look into each small element of the task, we have
> found a multitude of issues, and slowly and successfully dealt with them
> all so far.  I would like to continue to give these issues the attention
> they deserve, while also giving our users the release that they are
> crying out for.

> I know you disagree, but I actually believe that the required level of
> integration has been completed.  Our users consistently report that they
> find Samba4 to be incredibly well integrated, and are impressed by how
> well they can just provision the domain, and simply start 'samba'.
> Additionally, the smbpasswd, net getdomainsid and other passdb commands
> now work, and we have a migration script.  My view is that the file
> server switch is indeed like other AD features, something that can be
> added later on.

> I'm trying to support our Samba AD DC users in the best way I can, yet
> clearly I have stepped on a number of toes and uncovered some very
> deeply held feelings about what the future of Samba looks like. 
> 
> Do you think it is possible to find a way to release the code our
> production users are using to date?  Do you think we may possibly be
> able to explain to our users that we are keen to get them these
> features, but list the limitations?  If we released the same thing, but
> called it 3.7 while we waited for a more unified 4.0, would that help?
> 
> I would appreciate your advice here,

It seems everyone agrees that integrating the file (and print?) server
with the AD server is the most important missing item. So why not choose
a way to do that, implement it, release it as a beta and work out the
details of other blockers during and after the work for the beta?

Cheers

Luk