How to move storage OEMs to Samba 4.0 ?

[Michael Adam]

Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> >> * We could offer a loose collection of backported feature patches
> >>   not harnessed into a release, so every interested OEM can pick
> >>   from that collection.
> > 
> > I don't like that idea. The "loose collection of backported feature patches"
> > is what everyone has on their own right now. It negates the
> > advantage of being a "release".
> 
> I'd suggest a v3-6-backports branch (maybe in an extra repo, rebased on
> v3-6-stable)

This is to my understanding a possible "implementation" of a
loose collection of backported patches, one which I proposed in
an earlier mail, btw. It was commented in the mail that this would
effectively be a release, but that is not the case.
I still like this idea.

> >> I would really like to discuss this further since I also want to
> >> reach the best possible way to help OEMs with current releases
> >> while encouraging them to move to 4.0.
> > 
> > So again, as everyone seemed to ignore it. I really like Ira's
> > suggestion.
> > 
> > Anyone can submit a "new feature" patch for 3.6.next, under
> > the following conditions.
> > 
> > 3 engineers must review and buy-off on the changes, not
> > two. At least 2 of the engineers must be from different
> > organizations (i.e. No all-Sernet, all-Google, or all-IBM
> > patches).
> > 
> > Does that help ? I think it strikes the right balance
> > of opening up the tree a little bit, without having
> > a new "3.6.next is open for everything" policy.
> 
> And how many are needed to veto it?

If we were to accept this, then a single (founded) veto would block, IMHO.

Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120613/eac9d9c1/attachment-0001.pgp>