[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       samba-technical
Subject:    Re: Name Change for Samba4? [Re: What is blocking a Samba4 Tech
From:       "Kurt Pfeifle" <k1pfeifle () gmx ! net>
Date:       2005-12-22 18:14:22
Message-ID: 200512221909.39988.k1pfeifle () gmx ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 22 December 2005 17:18, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:32:57PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > 
> > While I think there are many valid points in this mail, a name other
> > than Samba is a non-starter (loss of brand), and that Samba4 1.0 is just
> > going to cause confusion.  
> 
> It's not a loss of brand - it's a new product under the same
> brand (IMHO). Calling the packages Samba4 is a good idea for
> the reasons Kurt said (IMHO). Samba4 *is* completely different,
> that's the point - it *is* a rewrite.

My main point was however not just to rename the package, but
also its contents (config files, binaries, libs, directories)
in order to make parallel installations of Samba3 and Samba4-SVN 
a no-brainer (important for any testing endeavour by non-core 
developers) as well as making later upgrades of productive 
systems going more smoothly (because backing off and returning 
to Samba3 would be easy too).

Could someone give an estimate (in man days or man months) how
much effort it could possibly be to rename all the files in SVN 
(which could happen in a separate branch possibly)?

> We shouldn't try and tell 
> users it's just a continuation because that's not true, and is
> actually the point of the new code.
> 
> Jeremy.

Ciao,
Kurt
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]