To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

[Kai Blin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2011-11-30 22:37, Jeremy Allison wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

> Having the other one there to be enabled by the user is fine, but
> by default both AD-DC and fileserving should use the same code.
> Trying to do it this way will lead to massive confusion amongst
> users.

Then we can pretty much stop thinking about a release in 2012. All the
S3 file serving people seem to be too busy playing with SMB2.x to be
able to work on integrating the S3 file server into S4. Given that the
integration work will certainly require changes to the file server
code as well, I forsee a lot of yelling happening if one of the S4
devs steps up to do the task. Especially as so far no one seems to be
talking about _how_ we should do the integration, apart from pointing
at respective conflicting implementations.

For someone who's not involved enough in neither the intricacies of
the AD parts nor has much of a clue about the file server, I can't
really weight the options presented against each other. I'm vaguely
aware with the conceptual differences between Tridge's proposed
solution and the up-to-date Franky approach.

The way I see this, we're currently blocking on the file server (and
possibly winbindd, but I'm sure the problems are pretty much identical
here). We have been blocking on these for some years now, and I don't
see a terrible lot of movement there.

The conflicting interests in this discussion I see are:

Release the AD code soon
vs.
We need to ship with a file server that can do at least as much as smbd.

My proposal was a compromise between those by suggesting to tackle
these things one at a time, but that doesn't seem to be acceptable. We
don't seem to have the manpower to do the integration in a reasonable
time frame. So what is your suggestion we should do?

If you tell people to delay the release of the AD code until the file
server is integrated, it's only fair to then spend the time working on
integrating the file server, not on doing more of smb2.x.

So, what's our plan to proceed with this?

Cheers,
Kai

- -- 
Kai Blin
Worldforge developer http://www.worldforge.org/
Wine developer http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin
Samba team member http://www.samba.org/samba/team/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk7WsIAACgkQEKXX/bF2FpT4HACgoOUA77mPuGSHDynewvb866cq
CuMAoJoVKNFZWVkTMncokDV4HG15W4fo
=c7hL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----