[Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3 - Samba

This is a discussion on [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3 - Samba ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hey folks, The next 3.2 release date will be on Tuesday, July 1. There were 81 checkins since 3.2.0rc2 in total, 42 were bug fixes, 39 were documentation fixes and testsuite improvements. We need ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

  1. [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Hey folks,

    The next 3.2 release date will be on Tuesday, July 1.

    There were 81 checkins since 3.2.0rc2 in total, 42 were bug fixes,
    39 were documentation fixes and testsuite improvements.

    We need should ship the final release as soon as possible.
    The changes were mainly pretty small and obvious bug fixes and
    that's why I would like to propose to ship 3.2.0 on Tuesday
    instead of rc3 (if one issue will be fixed then).

    It is the first 3.2 release and everybody should be aware of the
    riscs compared with the 3.0 series. The code changes in between
    3.0 and 3.2 are huge and even another rc would not guarrantee a
    stable release.

    Do you agree?
    Does anybody vote for rc3?

    Cheers,
    Karolin



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIYiaGKGi9fisXk1ERAhMFAJ4yLpLtuziq5PMMc9mrUq Ryih11hwCgmDp/
    40d/i1rImHSFSwrPBCGKahE=
    =Aifm
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

    Hi Karolin,

    Karolin Seeger wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Hey folks,
    >
    > The next 3.2 release date will be on Tuesday, July 1.
    >
    > There were 81 checkins since 3.2.0rc2 in total, 42 were bug fixes,
    > 39 were documentation fixes and testsuite improvements.
    >
    > We need should ship the final release as soon as possible.
    > The changes were mainly pretty small and obvious bug fixes and
    > that's why I would like to propose to ship 3.2.0 on Tuesday
    > instead of rc3 (if one issue will be fixed then).
    >
    > It is the first 3.2 release and everybody should be aware of the
    > riscs compared with the 3.0 series. The code changes in between
    > 3.0 and 3.2 are huge and even another rc would not guarrantee a
    > stable release.
    >
    > Do you agree?


    Yes, absolutely. Ship it before people find all the remaining bugs

    > Does anybody vote for rc3?


    -1

    Guenther
    --
    Günther Deschner GPG-ID: 8EE11688
    Red Hat gdeschner@redhat.com
    Samba Team gd@samba.org


  3. Re: [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

    On Wednesday 25 June 2008 06:07:26 Karolin Seeger wrote:
    > Hey folks,
    >
    > The next 3.2 release date will be on Tuesday, July 1.
    >
    > There were 81 checkins since 3.2.0rc2 in total, 42 were bug fixes,
    > 39 were documentation fixes and testsuite improvements.
    >
    > We need should ship the final release as soon as possible.
    > The changes were mainly pretty small and obvious bug fixes and
    > that's why I would like to propose to ship 3.2.0 on Tuesday
    > instead of rc3 (if one issue will be fixed then).
    >
    > It is the first 3.2 release and everybody should be aware of the
    > riscs compared with the 3.0 series. The code changes in between
    > 3.0 and 3.2 are huge and even another rc would not guarrantee a
    > stable release.
    >
    > Do you agree?


    Yes. Let's get 3.2.0 out, people are waiting for it.

    > Does anybody vote for rc3?


    -1 for me. Please try to avoid another release candidate.

    We know that there will be additional bugs to fix, let's do that in 3.2.1.

    - John T.


  4. Re: [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

    John H Terpstra wrote:
    > On Wednesday 25 June 2008 06:07:26 Karolin Seeger wrote:
    > >
    > > It is the first 3.2 release and everybody should be aware of the
    > > riscs compared with the 3.0 series. The code changes in between
    > > 3.0 and 3.2 are huge and even another rc would not guarrantee a
    > > stable release.
    > >
    > > Do you agree?

    >
    > Yes. Let's get 3.2.0 out, people are waiting for it.
    >
    > > Does anybody vote for rc3?

    >
    > -1 for me. Please try to avoid another release candidate.
    >
    > We know that there will be additional bugs to fix, let's do that in 3.2.1.


    Same here.
    +1 for final.

    Michael

    --
    Michael Adam
    SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
    phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
    AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
    http://www.SerNet.DE, mailto: Info @ SerNet.DE

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: comment

    iD8DBQFIYk/hyU9JOBhPkDQRAgIlAJ97kRdaBKvU6clK17FhtfLDaEbPeACeO HsB
    YA+gL6HuDeHLw52Tsi0r4zo=
    =Fp/C
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  5. Re: [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

    On Wednesday 25 June 2008 13:07:26 Karolin Seeger wrote:
    > Do you agree?


    Full ACK. Let's get 3.2 out there.

    > Does anybody vote for rc3?


    A real release will give us more people finding the remaining bugs.

    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/
    --
    Will code for cotton.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBIYmuyEKXX/bF2FpQRAqf1AJsGIvSfi1uwSPRR5MRZ1SzspArO1gCdH+3i
    /Ab1pVpSnyB/fkueQN9AjlA=
    =pF+9
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  6. Re: [Release Planning 3.2] 3.2.0 final vs. 3.2.0rc3

    Quoting Karolin Seeger (ks@sernet.de):

    > It is the first 3.2 release and everybody should be aware of the
    > riscs compared with the 3.0 series. The code changes in between
    > 3.0 and 3.2 are huge and even another rc would not guarrantee a
    > stable release.
    >
    > Do you agree?
    > Does anybody vote for rc3?



    If my own advice is of some value (I don't have the Samba Team
    t-shirt...:-)), I'd say "go for 3.2 final". Even as an outsider from
    the coding folks, it is obvious that things have converged to a stable
    code basis now.

    Then, wearing my Debian t-shirt, I'll have the interesting decision to
    make with my fellow co-developers about which version of Samba we ship
    with Debian (rock-solid stable 3.0.3x or more invasive 3.2.0?), but
    that's our problem..:-)

    (Steve, my vote finally goes for us to ship 3.2.0)


+ Reply to Thread