To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

[Volker Lendecke]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:43:59AM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> 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.

This agreement has been recalled within this thread by very
clear words.

> (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.)

What does that mean in practice? If that code is available
in the build, people will enable it. What happens if bugs
pop up then? Will we tell people this is an unsupported
component, or will we put the same energy into fixing those
bugs in the S4 file server component that we put into the S3
file server? The first option ruins our reputation, the
second one just overloads us. I don't thing any of those two
alternatives is acceptable for us.

Volker

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de