Yo Jeremy! On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 07:30:07AM +1000, Jeremy Allison wrote:> Hi all,> I'd like to ask to make a version number change > for the next stable release. Currently we're planning to > release something we're planning to call 2.0.8.[...]> But I'd like to call it 2.2.0 instead. That way people > know this is a more significant change, and will hopefully > do more testing before slotting this into a production > system.This makes sense to me, but I have a question. 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). If so, I have to say that I'm all for it. I just want to know if that's officially the road we are about to walk down.> Currently I have buy off from the rest of the Samba Team > on this version change, what does everyone else think ?My vote says do it.> Regards,> Jeremy Allison, > Samba Team.> -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > Buying an operating system without source is like buying > a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions. > --------------------------------------------------------Mike -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 331-2437 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
Hi all,
I'd like to ask to make a version number change
for the next stable release. Currently we're planning to
release something we're planning to call 2.0.8.
However, what I'm actually busyly creating in the CVS tree
is HEAD minus vfs and dfs and some of the TNG mods.
This is a very big change to call 2.0.8, which implies a
minor rev. on 2.0.7.
Now I still want to ship this code as the next release,
as it is *significantly* better than what otherwise would
be in 2.0.8. I will go into more details on the changes
in a later email, but this code is *definately* more robust
and correct from an SMB standpoint than the 2.0.x code.
But I'd like to call it 2.2.0 instead. That way people
know this is a more significant change, and will hopefully
do more testing before slotting this into a production
system.
Currently I have buy off from the rest of the Samba Team
on this version change, what does everyone else think ?
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
--------------------------------------------------------
> From: Jeremy Allison <jeremy@valinux.com> > Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:30:14 +1000 > > Now I still want to ship this code as the next release, > as it is *significantly* better than what otherwise would > be in 2.0.8. I will go into more details on the changes > in a later email, but this code is *definately* more robust > and correct from an SMB standpoint than the 2.0.x code.As one who really doesn't care what the version number is, but wants a stable version of Samba that supports LDAP and Win2K, I'm waiting anxiously for your later email. Chris -- Chris Garrigues virCIO http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com +1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500 4314 Avenue C O- Austin, TX 78751-3709 My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 239 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20000518/7bc65b0b/attachment.bin