How to move storage OEMs to Samba 4.0 ?
mat at matws.net
Wed Jun 13 02:42:48 MDT 2012
On 06/12/2012 05:45 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:36:54AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 08:33 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>>>> * What do the OEMs themselves want from us?
>>>> Do they want a blended OEM-feature release?
>>> They want all new features in no new release of course :-).
>>> Which is impossible :-).
>> Indeed. So why are you proposing anything like it? Perhaps I'm missing
>> something: What do we gain at a team by even attempting part of this
>> impossible feat?
> See the patch I just posted for a perfect example of
> the kind of thing I'm proposing.
> A 10x speedup for a certain application class. In
> less than 2000 lines of code.
> But it's a "new feature", and thus prohibited
> from going into 3.6.next.
> I think that's dumb.
As most of the other I don't like the idea of a 3.7 branch. But I find
the idea of backporting some patches useful, in my particular case being
able to backport some patches makes their samba's experience better (I
backported 2 or 3 patches) and I have a couple of improvement that I
could do in master and then backport a couple of them in previous branch.
But of course it's hard to draw a line between simple backport and more
complicated one as the latter one bare a higher risk of regression on
the stable branch.
I think the proposal of having 3 reviews is not the best solution but
it's human controlled way of avoiding too much regression and too much
More information about the samba-technical