[Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.6 on May 31 (was May 24)?

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:00:28PM +0200, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> Hi Jeremy!
> 
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:49:06PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 09:36:59PM +0200, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, Samba 3.6.6 will be delayed. There is one blocker that needs to
> > > be addressed (bug #8944: smbd doesn't start with ldapsam:trusted options).
> > > 
> > > The new planned release date is May 31, if there are no objections.
> > > That means, the v3-6-test branch will be frozen on May 24 (in 3 days!).
> > > 
> > > Additionally, the 3.6.6 bug depends on four bugs that should be
> > > addressed:
> > > 
> > > -Bug 8373 - Can't join XP Pro workstations to 3.6.1 DC
> > 
> > No patch available yet for #8373.
> > 
> > > -Bug 8598 - force user fails for active directory users
> > 
> > Patch available for #8598, but I'm not sure it's correct. Needs more eyes on this.
> > 
> > > -Bug 8910 - resolve_ads() code can return zero addresses and miss valid DC
> > >             IP addresses.
> > 
> > Patch available for #8910 and +ve review, awaiting me adding a test case.
> > I've raised this one to "blocker" as it also affects domain join (as
> > found in #8893) and a host of other potential name lookup problems.
> > 
> > > -Bug 8943 - Slow but responsive DC can lock up winbindd for > 10 minutes at a time
> > >             (3.5 to master)
> > 
> > Patches available for 3.6, needs review.
> > 
> > > I am still not sure how to handle these release bugs. Currently, I handle
> > > them as "should be fixed", but not as blockers. Can I ship a release when
> > > there are four bugs listed in the release bug?
> > > 
> > > So we should aggree on how to handle these release bugs (or don't we need
> > > them at all?).
> > 
> > I think #8910 is a blocker (but it's the easiest to get in). #8943
> > would also be nice to have. Unless we get a patch for #8373 we'll
> > have to live with it. I'm scared of the patch for #8598, unless we
> > can prove it doesn't break anything else (this is complicated code :-).
> 
> Thanks a lot for investigating! :-)

Updates - I've now added the test case for #8910, so it should be easy
now for Metze, Michael or Volker to approve (hint hint :-).

I've also added 8953 - winbind can hang as nbt_getdc() has no timeout.

But there's a patch available and Herb (the submitter) has tested it
and so I'll get him to approve.

I'll work on reviewing #8373 and #8943 to get all these bugs addressed
before release.

Cheers,

	Jeremy.