How to move storage OEMs to Samba 4.0 ?

[Kai Blin]

On 2012-06-18 19:49, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:55:47PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>>
>> I don't see the difference between building 4.0 with
>>
>>     ./configure --without-ad-dc --with-system-mitkrb5
>>
>> and creating a 3.7 branch and building it with source3/configure. With
>> the latest changes this is essentially the the same. Maybe Jeremy needs
>> some private lessons with the 4.0 build system :)
> 
> The whole point is that it really isn't the same (code-wise).
> 
> If you don't understand that you don't understand the requirements
> here.

Ok, I guess I don't understand the requirements.

Some mails ago you said you were going to convince us that piling a
bunch of possibly unrelated patches potentially interesting to different
OEMs in a stable branch would make OEMs happy. Unless I missed the email
where you did that convincing, all I saw so far was  a "proof by claim"
approach.

To bring up the points against opening up the 3.6 branch for new
features again:

- We promised that stable branches are bug fix only to our users. By
adding in new features, we break that promise.

- We're having a hard enough time getting bug fix releases for 3.6 out
of the door, new features add even more of a strain on our developer
resources.

- It sends the wrong message to our users, giving the impression that
smbd from 4.0 isn't working as it should.

- We're breaking the business model of many companies that employ Samba
developers to take care of their custom development needs.

- OEMs like stable releases, new features potentially destabilize things.

The pro side seems to be:

- OEMs like new features, if they're safe and make Samba work faster/better.

- 4.0 is scary because of the number, because it's new, and perhaps
because of the magnitude of code that changed. (There's still a lot of
arguing over the last part of the statement)

There's contention if we can guarantee the "if they're safe" part, and
if the "4.0 is scary"-feeling is justification enough to break our
"patches only for stable release branches" policy.

Did I miss anything? Especially anything that backs up the claims from
the "pro" side that are more than just "because I said so"?

Cheers,
Kai

-- 
Kai Blin
Worldforge developer http://www.worldforge.org/
Wine developer http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin
Samba team member http://www.samba.org/samba/team/