Releasing Samba 4.0 RC1?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 11:07 -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 12:25 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 22:50 -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> >
> >> I think we should really start to tackle all our blocking bugs for 4.0
> >> before the RC, we can recheck the list also we discussed about a white
> >> paper for users about 4.0 in terms of understanding what is this 4.0
> >> release (ie. stability of the file server between version 3.6.x and
> >> 4.0.x, ...) I think if we decide not to have read ACLs activated it's
> >> *really* important to state it in this kind of paper so that admin
> >> picking this are aware of it.
> >> A release a bit before SDC didn't sounds to bad if we starts to tackle
> >> the two points mentioned before.
> > Matthieu,
> >
> > I'm confused.  How can we start to tackle all our blocking bugs for 4.0
> > before the RC and a do an RC before SDC?
> start to tackle didn't mean ihmo resolving all the issues before RC but 
> at least starting to work on them to see those that are still relevant 
> and those which aren't anymore.

That much I have been doing, and with one or two exceptions where the
reporter is being pinged, what remains is, if we were to fix it, a
substantial amount of work, particularly in comparison to the resources
we have normally had available.

Naturally, if more folks have more time, we can fix more bugs, but the
list in bugzilla is pretty much the 'hard basket' at this point. 

> > To be clear:  I don't have time for any of the bugs attached as blockers
> > there so far, and don't expect that situation to improve in the next
> > month.   (I'm still swamped by trying to keep on top of the various
> > things reported on the list daily and the remaining s3fs issues).
> Well you do a pretty good job on this but
> >
> > I appreciate your offer to find time to work on this, but I also think
> > we need to be much more realistic about what we can actually achieve.
> >
> > All that said, I agree it would be useful to start on a document
> > explaining how Samba 4.0 and it's components fits into Samba's release
> > stream.  Perhaps this is something concrete you can start on?
> I'm quite ok to work on this just if we agree that's important it will 
> be eventually a blocker for the final release. Code feature are 
> important but documentation for users is important to.

My view is that given that folks are extensively using what we have
already, that we should only assign blocker status to thing that we have
folks signing up to fix.  That is, both our documentation and code seems
good enough for a wide selection of our current users. 

There are some things that are non-negotiable, because we already set
down a rule: like a smb.conf section for each new parameter, and a
man-page for each installed binary.  But beyond that we should focus on
what each of us can fix ourselves, rather than creating an arbitrary
list of things that someone else should fix. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org