Next stable version of Samba.

Peter Samuelson peter at
Thu May 18 11:21:50 GMT 2000

  [Michael H. Warfield]
> > Why 2.2 and not 2.1?  Are we now going to embark on the odd/even
> > convention of the Linux kernel (odd minor is development, evem
> > minor is release).

[Jeremy Allison <jeremy at>]
> Yes that's the plan.  Even minor numbers mean a "stable" release.  It
> works well for Linux so I decided to steal it :-).

Ummmmm, pardon my ignorance, but why?  Are you saying 2.1, 2.3, 2.5,
etc are not going to be used *at all*?

In Linux, Gtk+ and other projects that currently use the x.[02468].z vs
x.[13579].z distinction, they actually release development versions
periodically.  In the Samba world, by contrast, all we have is stable
releases and anonymous CVS.  Is this going to change as well?  Will you
be releasing regular x.[13579].z alpha versions now?

Because if not, then skipping 2.1 and going straight to 2.2 doesn't
seem to serve any purpose.


More information about the samba mailing list