How to move storage OEMs to Samba 4.0 ?

[Michael Adam]

Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 08:21:06AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > OK, my mail was way too long.
> > 
> > Let me recap the most important questions/points:
> > 
> > * What is so new in the 4.0 release step file-server-wise
> >   that OEMs will refrain from upgrading even longer than
> >   they did/do for other releases?
> 
> Large, realtively untested changes in many core components.
> Don't get me wrong, I think we're doing the best we can
> and our testing is getting better. But there are large
> changes here. More change == more new bugs. It really is that
> simple.

Right, I'd still say that this is the same as with previous releases.
Overhauling the whole rpc infrastructure, adding smb2 support, etc.

> >   Is 4.0 fileserver-wise really worse / more scary / bigger than
> >   earlier releases from the point of view of OEMs?
> 
> Yes.

Just claiming "yes" is not enough. ;)

> > * The major changes listed to support the dangerousness of 4.0 were
> >   changes not authored by you (or Volker, or me..). So might it
> >   be that this fact rather creates an increased fear (of the unknown
> >   or uncontrolled) on your side?
> 
> Nope. I'm happy with  the changes, and I reviewed many of
> them. But I'm not perfect.

Right, but again, this is no different from previous releases.

> > * In short, is it really the OEMs' fears your are expressing or
> >   rather your own fear projected to the OEMs?
> 
> No, it's OEMs.

Ok, we can go back and forth saying "yes" and "no".
Without proof or examples this will lead nowhere.
I have not heard concerns like this from OEMs, and I also
know a few. Most of them seem to move to 3.6 just now.
All this is of course difficult to prove with examples in
public. Maybe we should have a private chat on the phone or so.  :)

> > Of course I want to help the OEMs (I already do).
> > But I am not convinced that that opening up 3.6 for feature
> > backports is the right thing.
> 
> I'm here to convince you otherwise :-).

> > * 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 :-).

Right. It was precisely like that before. Which does not mean we
can not improve our mode here. But I don't want to have 4.0 being
promoted as the unknown evil out there that makes us backport all
sorts of nifty fileserver features back to 3.6. This would
definitely be the wrong sign!

If we are convinced that what we work on in the fileserver area
in master at the moment is good and we want our users, especially
OEMs to use it after the year or half of stabilization that they
need anyways, then should we work against it by "officialy"
backporting patches into the 3.6 release? I don't think so.

> > 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.

I think it would add a little more safty. But effectively
it would still be open for everything.

Cheers - 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/20120613/40dae585/attachment.pgp>