[Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

[Simo Sorce]

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 00:06, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:

> > That's fine with development versions, but samba stable is ... well ...
> > stable :-)
> > 
> There's (at least) three other things involved here, though:
> 
> * Because upstream (samba developers) say something is stable may not be 
> good enough for Debian team, since they have to stand behind it
> * Some of the testing is on the Debian package itself: how well does it 
> integrate into Debian, etc.
> * Debian is not one entity, but a group of developers; if the Samba 
> maintainer were allowed to shove a new package into stable, that might 
> be OK; but other developers would want to do the same thing, and, sooner 
> or later, stable would get a showstopping problem.
> 
> I would say that third reason is really important.  Stated another way, 
> because Debian is very loosely organized, no one person can decide what 
> can/cannot go into stable; therefore it is governed by policy, which had 
> to govern everyone, and therefore errs on the cautious side.
> 
> Does that make sense?  If you don't like this sort of loosely organized 
> team, which has political problems, you might like another distribution 
> better.  With a whole other set of problems.  :-)

You got me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with debian, and use it with much
joy. I do know debian only vaguely, just I see that sometimes it is
really very slow, 10 months is really a lot of time without an upgrade.
I'm ok with good scrutiny, but it seem that samba has been forgotten
this time :-)

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20021213/d6bfebf5/attachment.bin