To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

[Michael Adam]

Hi,

I agree with Tridge in that IMHO, your proposal is counterproductive.
We have been working towards a more shared codebase, and we have
been thinking and discussing a common/combined release since some
time now. No one said that it would be easy.  There are different
interests and people have different opinions, some have strong
opinions and even emotions about their components and approaches.
This does not make things especially easy at times, but I think
it is very, very worthwile to pursue the goal of a common release
stream and increasingly common code base.

We should not give up the common ground we have covered.
In the end we all want to continue improving Samba, we
should not forget that. :-)

Now we have reached the point where we are for the first time
seriously talking about releasing a 4.0 soonish. This means that
we need to agree on a couple of things.

We have agreed in the past that the samba3 smbd file server
should eventually be the file server in the 4.0 release.
(If this is the default, then I think it should not be a problem
to also keep the s4 fileserver part (at least for a while) so that
it can be enabled if desired.)

We still need some discussion about winbindd, I guess.

The major points that need clarification is how the plumbing
between the components should work, technically.

Cheers - Michael

Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> Hi Volker,
> 
> > To end this discussion, maybe we should admit that Samba 4.0
> > will not be a valid successor to Samba 3.6.
> 
> I strongly disagree with this. What we have in master right now is a
> superset of Samba 3.6, so saying it is not a valid successor is not
> correct.
> 
> We have all of the capabilities of Samba 3.6, plus we have the
> additional capability of being an AD DC. The fact that you start a
> different daemon to be a AD DC and get different components is not
> reason enough to abandon our efforts to unify the codebase.
> 
> > This probably also means doing the releases from different
> > git branches, as we tend to step on each other's toes much
> > too often.
> 
> We did that for years, and it was not good. Since moving to a single
> branch and doing merge work to unify the code bases we have made a lot
> of good progress which has benefitted all the roles of Samba. We now
> have a lot more code in common than we did a year ago and we are making
> steady progress towards a fully unified project.
> 
> The fact that we are not completely unified yet is not a reason to
> abandon that effort. All we are trying to work out is release points,
> and exactly what components must be unified for a given release name.
> 
> Cheers, Tridge

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20111130/1f68a7e3/attachment.pgp>