|From:||Andrew Tridgell <tridge-AT-samba.org>|
|To:||Jeremy Allison <jra-AT-samba.org>|
|Subject:||Re: To release Samba 4.0 'as is'|
|Date:||Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:39:01 +1100|
|Cc:||Andreas Schneider <asn-AT-samba.org>, samba-technical-AT-lists.samba.org|
Hi Jeremy, > Having a second file server embedded - used only in certain > cases and having differing semantics is a receipe for disaster, > and not a good idea for long term stability of this release. I am not suggesting it should be the default, but I would like to keep the ntvfs code buildable and usable. Apart from the embedded case, it is also the file server we have done all testing of Samba as a DC against so far. Being able to run it by setting a config option is a good thing I think, at the very least for debugging issues with the changeover to the smbd based file server. It also means that existing sites running s4 as a DC are able to continue to run the file server they have been using up to now. It also has a very nice structure. I'd eventually like to see the smbd file server adopt many of the structural ideas in ntvfs. I know that won't happen soon, but it seems silly to throw all that effort in the bin when it has a lot of good design features. > That's a big sticking point for me. I though we'd decided > s4 fileserver was smbd code - end of story. The details > were how to do the integration. > > Now I hear the ntvfs/ server is coming back from the dead. > I didn't sign on for that at all. In past discussions I tried to make it clear that I didn't want the ntvfs/ code to be deleted, only that the default should be the s3 smbd one. Cheers, Tridge
Copyright © 2011, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds