How to move storage OEMs to Samba 4.0 ?

Kai Blin kai at
Wed Jun 6 05:44:05 MDT 2012

On 2012-06-06 11:49, Volker Lendecke wrote:

> It is the sum of changes that went in. gensec,
> security=share gone, security=ads requires a more advanced
> environment, merged loadparm, possibly ntdb as a new
> default. This is enough to scare people away from s4 for the
> OEM case for at least 12 months if not much more from now.
> I would say that we can't leave those in the cold for so
> long. We have a backlog of features that we don't accept
> right now, and this will only grow over the next year or
> two.

But isn't that basically putting us in the position that for some people
some subset of that will be interesting for a 3.6 inclusion (or 3.7 or
whatever), and for other people another subset will be interesting, and
we're either leaving the former or the latter stuck without their
patches at some point? How do we decide? What's a "harmless minor
addition"? I remember the "harmless minor additions" that went into the
3.6 release branch one after the other, and then at some point required
us to sync up with master again to get a grip on the code again.

As for VFS modules, if they're unrelated to the rest of the code, why do
we need a new release for those anyway?

Isn't the managing of exactly the required minimal set of patches
required for a specific use case just that added value that OEMs
provide? I'm not saying that we should make the life for the OEMs harder
than necessary, but where do we draw the line with the "minor
additions"? Historically, I don't think we've been very good at that.


Kai Blin
Worldforge developer
Wine developer
Samba team member

More information about the samba-technical mailing list