[Release Planning 3.6] Samba 3.6.6 on Mai 24?

[Karolin Seeger-2]

Hey folks,

what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
Are there any objections?

Cheers,
Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Andreas Schneider-2]

On Monday 07 May 2012 16:12:41 Karolin Seeger wrote:
> Hey folks,

Hey Karolin.

> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> Are there any objections?

not at all. We need to discuss the large regsitry patchset which went into
master this week. We need the fixes in 3.6!


        -- andreas

--
Andreas Schneider                   GPG-ID: F33E3FC6
www.cryptomilk.org                [hidden email]

[Christopher Chan]

On Monday, May 07, 2012 10:12 PM, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> Are there any objections?
>    

It would be nice if the same fix in the configure script for 3.5.x will
also be incorporated into 3.6.6 with regards to ldap detection.

--- configure.in-cc     2012-05-08 08:56:15.350952997 +0800
+++ configure.in        2012-05-08 09:07:32.545196176 +0800
@@ -3594,7 +3594,7 @@

  # HPUX only has ldap_init; ok, we take care of this in smbldap.c
  case "$host_os" in
-       *hpux*)
+       *hpux* | *solaris* )
      AC_CHECK_FUNC_EXT(ldap_init,$LDAP_LIBS)

      if test x"$ac_cv_func_ext_ldap_init" != x"yes"; then

[Christopher Chan]

On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 09:09 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Monday, May 07, 2012 10:12 PM, Karolin Seeger wrote:
>> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
>> Are there any objections?
>
> It would be nice if the same fix in the configure script for 3.5.x
> will also be incorporated into 3.6.6 with regards to ldap detection.

Another fix in the 3.5.x configure script:

Not sure which line but there is a FOUND_KRB5=yes line that is commented
out because it will interfere with future checks down the line that rely
on FOUND_KRB5=no.

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 11:22 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 09:09 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> > On Monday, May 07, 2012 10:12 PM, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> >> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> >> Are there any objections?
> >
> > It would be nice if the same fix in the configure script for 3.5.x
> > will also be incorporated into 3.6.6 with regards to ldap detection.
>
> Another fix in the 3.5.x configure script:
>
> Not sure which line but there is a FOUND_KRB5=yes line that is commented
> out because it will interfere with future checks down the line that rely
> on FOUND_KRB5=no.

The process to get changes into 3.6 is to raise bugs with patches in
bugzilla.

Andrew Bartlett

--
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org

[Karolin Seeger-2]

Hi Christopher,

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:39:51PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 11:22 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 09:09 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 07, 2012 10:12 PM, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> > >> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> > >> Are there any objections?
> > >
> > > It would be nice if the same fix in the configure script for 3.5.x
> > > will also be incorporated into 3.6.6 with regards to ldap detection.
> >
> > Another fix in the 3.5.x configure script:
> >
> > Not sure which line but there is a FOUND_KRB5=yes line that is commented
> > out because it will interfere with future checks down the line that rely
> > on FOUND_KRB5=no.
>
> The process to get changes into 3.6 is to raise bugs with patches in
> bugzilla.

Andrew is right, please open (or refer to) a bug report.
In master, there is a patch fixing your issues, I think.
It's commit ac25835ab7. Please find this patch attached to this mail and
mention it in the bug report.

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

Cheers,
Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Christopher Chan]

On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 03:18 PM, Karolin Seeger wrote:
>
> Andrew is right, please open (or refer to) a bug report.
> In master, there is a patch fixing your issues, I think.
> It's commit ac25835ab7. Please find this patch attached to this mail and
> mention it in the bug report.
>
> Thanks a lot for your feedback!
>    

Oh wonderful. I did not know Gordon was on it. I'll open a bug report. I
guess you need that patch tested or something?

Cheers,

Christopher

[Karolin Seeger-2]

On Di, Mai 08, 2012 at 03:55:16 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 03:18 PM, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> >
> >Andrew is right, please open (or refer to) a bug report.
> >In master, there is a patch fixing your issues, I think.
> >It's commit ac25835ab7. Please find this patch attached to this mail and
> >mention it in the bug report.
> >
> >Thanks a lot for your feedback!
> >  
>
> Oh wonderful. I did not know Gordon was on it. I'll open a bug report. I
> guess you need that patch tested or something?

Yes, testing helps to get the patch into the release branches soon.

Thanks!

Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Jeremy Allison]

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 06:43:16PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:

> On Monday 07 May 2012 16:12:41 Karolin Seeger wrote:
> > Hey folks,
>
> Hey Karolin.
>
> > what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> > Are there any objections?
>
> not at all. We need to discuss the large regsitry patchset which went into
> master this week. We need the fixes in 3.6!

That works - there are several patches of mine waiting
on review that I'd really like to get in though.

Jeremy.

[Karolin Seeger-2]

On Di, Mai 08, 2012 at 05:40:43 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:

> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 06:43:16PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > On Monday 07 May 2012 16:12:41 Karolin Seeger wrote:
> > > Hey folks,
> >
> > Hey Karolin.
> >
> > > what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> > > Are there any objections?
> >
> > not at all. We need to discuss the large regsitry patchset which went into
> > master this week. We need the fixes in 3.6!
>
> That works - there are several patches of mine waiting
> on review that I'd really like to get in though.

Feel free to add these bugs to the 3.6.6 release bug
(https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8595) to make sure that
they end up in the release.

Cheers,
Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):

> > That works - there are several patches of mine waiting
> > on review that I'd really like to get in though.
>
> Feel free to add these bugs to the 3.6.6 release bug
> (https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8595) to make sure that
> they end up in the release.


I just had a look at this bug and my understanding is that it is
linked to all bugs that the new release is meant to fix.

So, I guess that #8762 should be added to this list, am I right?

I'm also wondering about #8139 which was pushed to the "next" branches
as of Feb 3rd, so just after the release of 3.6.3

[Karolin Seeger-2]

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:35:41PM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:

> Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):
>
> > > That works - there are several patches of mine waiting
> > > on review that I'd really like to get in though.
> >
> > Feel free to add these bugs to the 3.6.6 release bug
> > (https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8595) to make sure that
> > they end up in the release.
>
>
> I just had a look at this bug and my understanding is that it is
> linked to all bugs that the new release is meant to fix.

No, not all bugs. Let's say bugs that should really be fixed.
To be honest, I don't get the sense of this container, because you could
use the importance for that classification. But of course that's very
subjective. Maybe Günther would like to comment.

> So, I guess that #8762 should be added to this list, am I right?

Not necessarily. This patch has been pushed and will definately be included
in the next bugfix release. I think adding each bug included to the
release bug does not make sense. All bugs addressed will be listed in the
release notes and it would take too much additional time to add all bug to
the release bug. But of course we can discuss that.
 
> I'm also wondering about #8139 which was pushed to the "next" branches
> as of Feb 3rd, so just after the release of 3.6.3

This one will be included in the next maintenance release as well. The
latency is due to the two security releases which included the security
fixes only.

Cheers,
Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):

> > I just had a look at this bug and my understanding is that it is
> > linked to all bugs that the new release is meant to fix.
>
> No, not all bugs. Let's say bugs that should really be fixed.
> To be honest, I don't get the sense of this container, because you could
> use the importance for that classification. But of course that's very
> subjective. Maybe Günther would like to comment.
>
> > So, I guess that #8762 should be added to this list, am I right?
>
> Not necessarily. This patch has been pushed and will definately be included
> in the next bugfix release. I think adding each bug included to the
> release bug does not make sense. All bugs addressed will be listed in the
> release notes and it would take too much additional time to add all bug to
> the release bug. But of course we can discuss that.

OK, got the point. The bug is not a metabug meant to gather together
the bugs fixed by a given release, but more a list of "blocker"
bugs. Makes sense.

>  
> > I'm also wondering about #8139 which was pushed to the "next" branches
> > as of Feb 3rd, so just after the release of 3.6.3
>
> This one will be included in the next maintenance release as well. The
> latency is due to the two security releases which included the security
> fixes only.


Nor problem with that. I'm actualy in my "bug triage" mood (the only
moment in the year where the count of bugs in the Debian package is
lowering...:-)) and trying to figure out what will be fixed by 3.6.6
among the big mess you can see at

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=samba;dist=unstable

Unfortunately, this : http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/s/samba.png
is always depressive..:-)
(and this year, I'll have hard times bringing this graph down to 60 or
so...)

[Alejandro-35]

A little question, How I can push bugs like 8798 to be in the next release?

Thanks

2012/5/8 Karolin Seeger <[hidden email]>:

> On Di, Mai 08, 2012 at 05:40:43 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 06:43:16PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>> > On Monday 07 May 2012 16:12:41 Karolin Seeger wrote:
>> > > Hey folks,
>> >
>> > Hey Karolin.
>> >
>> > > what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
>> > > Are there any objections?
>> >
>> > not at all. We need to discuss the large regsitry patchset which went into
>> > master this week. We need the fixes in 3.6!
>>
>> That works - there are several patches of mine waiting
>> on review that I'd really like to get in though.
>
> Feel free to add these bugs to the 3.6.6 release bug
> (https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8595) to make sure that
> they end up in the release.
>
> Cheers,
> Karolin
>
> --
> Samba                   http://www.samba.org
> SerNet                  http://www.sernet.de
> sambaXP                 http://www.sambaxp.org
>

--
Alejandro Escanero Blanco
Consultor de sistemas basados en fuentes abiertas
Desarrollador de FusionDirectory (http://www.fusiondirectory.org)
Blog: http://www.disasterproject.com
Jabber: [hidden email]

[Karolin Seeger-2]

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:49:22PM +0200, Alejandro wrote:
> A little question, How I can push bugs like 8798 to be in the next release?

Please provide an updated version of your patch and ask Metze to grant
review. Once the review has been granted, I can push the patch to the
release branch.

Thanks!

Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):
> Hey folks,
>
> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> Are there any objections?


Any chance you can consider #8923 (provide waf source in buildtools/)
for which Jelmer provided a patch in master and which would make our
lives much more easier with people who are the most picky about DFSG in
Debian..:-)

It doesn't really hurt indeed, but would save me from having to create
"DFSG compliant" source tarball for Debian releases...or patch the
original source to add more source to it..:-)

(Lexicon: DFSG==Debian Free Software Guidelines)

[John H Terpstra - Samba Team]

On 05/09/2012 07:43 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:

> Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
>> Are there any objections?
>
>
> Any chance you can consider #8923 (provide waf source in buildtools/)
> for which Jelmer provided a patch in master and which would make our
> lives much more easier with people who are the most picky about DFSG in
> Debian..:-)
>
> It doesn't really hurt indeed, but would save me from having to create
> "DFSG compliant" source tarball for Debian releases...or patch the
> original source to add more source to it..:-)
>
> (Lexicon: DFSG==Debian Free Software Guidelines)
>

Please can someone check #8893 to decide if this still needs to be
addressed before we ship 3.6.6.  Thanks.

- John T.

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):
> Hey folks,
>
> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> Are there any objections?

I would like to nominate #8598 as something that'snearly worth being a
blocker.

Indeed, not a block, but having the fix for this bug in one of the
upcoming 3.6.* and, at minimum, as something that really deserves
attention by someone in the Samba Team...would be great..:-)

I'm ready to help as much as I can to fix this because I'm badly hit
by this bug..:-)

Bug summary : can no longer "force user" to an AD or domain user in 3.6 (regression from 3.5)

[Karolin Seeger-2]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:23:59AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:

> Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> > Are there any objections?
>
> I would like to nominate #8598 as something that'snearly worth being a
> blocker.
>
> Indeed, not a block, but having the fix for this bug in one of the
> upcoming 3.6.* and, at minimum, as something that really deserves
> attention by someone in the Samba Team...would be great..:-)
>
> I'm ready to help as much as I can to fix this because I'm badly hit
> by this bug..:-)
>
> Bug summary : can no longer "force user" to an AD or domain user in 3.6 (regression from 3.5)

+1

Added to the 3.6.6 release bug
(https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8595).

Karolin

--
Samba http://www.samba.org
SerNet http://www.sernet.de
sambaXP http://www.sambaxp.org

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Karolin Seeger ([hidden email]):
> Hey folks,
>
> what do you think about releasing Samba 3.6.6 on Thursday, Mai 24?
> Are there any objections?

May I nominate https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7562 as an
"easy to catch" low-hanging fruit?

(though there is no patch in the bug report)