Blockers in Bugfix-Releases (Re: [Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.6 on May 31 (was May 24)?)

steve steve at
Tue Jun 5 11:28:28 MDT 2012

On 06/05/2012 07:05 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
>> We have been there a couple of times, but we never reached
>> a proper decision:
>> I have frequently announced my opinion that there can not be
>> blocker bugs for bufix releases (i.e. version Samba X.Y.Z with Z>  0).
>> The only exception for this might be the case of a regression
>> that was introduced in version X.Z.(Z-1).
>> (I might be convinced to accept "introduced X.Y.Z' with 0<= Z'<  Z",
>>   but it might be hard.)
>> In all other cases we have lived with the bug for some releases
>> anyways, so why should it be a blocker now?
>> The background for re-raising the issue is that bugs marked as
>> blockers for 3.6.6 (e.g., others as well) have managed to move
>> the release date again and again.
>> Proposal:
>> So I am proposing to not accept bugs as blockers for a bugfix
>> release, with the exception of a bug introduced in the previous
>> bugfix release. If the bug is not fixed by the proposed release
>> date then it will get into the next bugfix release afterwards
>> (or the second next, ...)
>> Opinions?
> -1. There are some bugs that are just so nasty I don't
> want to have them even in a x.y.z release.
> We just have to use judgement on them.
> Jeremy.
Hi Jeremy, hi everyone
OK, it's working more or less, but the acl's set on openSUSE and Ubuntu 
still do not show correct ownership.

[Bug 8938] Samba4: s3fs  does not set ACL's correctly

shows as

I wish I had learned C rather than Java!


More information about the samba-technical mailing list