Hi, On Thursday 25 October 2007 01:14, Jürgen Leibner wrote: > Nothing makes it special. It was written there, because there was a > sentence like: 'here we collect things for ...', if I remember > correctly. Yup. That sentence was there for about an hour, as a placeholder before our "debian edu lenny roadmap" session in Merida, at which we changed it to 'Here we will collect items for our roadmap to lenny. Do not just edit this list. Contact h01ger via [MAILTO] debian-edu@lists.debian.org before doing so. (The dev-meeting in October in Extremadura decided that h01ger is responsible for maintaining the roadmap.) Thanks. Exception: feel free to add yourself to "who plans to work on it" :-)' Because it's is not helpful if everybody adds their "pet bugs" to the roadmap, which then will become cluttered and unmaintainable. > Over all said above, more thinking before deleting is saving time and > nerves ;-) It goes the other way round, too: more thinking before writing is saving time and nerves too. :-D And (I'm pretty sure) you have no idea how much we thought about this, assuming we thought little (or need more thinking) can be taken as a demotivating insult, too. On Wednesday 24 October 2007 22:43, Kurt Gramlich wrote: > it is important, to get R1 runing without problems with window > workstations, that means a corrected and improved smb.conf > > at least in lenny it has to work Feel free to send patches, it seems to be important for you. That said, you might be interested to know, that I talked with Daniel about the issue (after noticing the discussion that happened that day on the german list, and before it was added to the roadmap) and that he said he will add this to the manual. Which prompted him to document the first steps with lwat (howto add linux machines to the network), which is a pre-requirement to document howto add windows machines. And this really puzzles me: > > I believe that the samba config work with Windows XP. Is this wrong? > Maybe it works, I didn't test it since months. Aehm, if you are not sure whether a bug is actually fixed, why add it to our workload instead of confirming first, if it's fixed or not? All this said, I'm happy you follow this bug and even/also that you added it to the roadmap. You were not in Merida, you just followed the wiki edits remotely and added something which is important for you. Great. "Unfortunatly" _we_ (not me alone) decided that bug was inappropriate for the roadmap and removed it. Removed it without further notice as we were aware of the issue (and were working on a fix) and are already tracking it. So IMO no big deal at all. regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpCj7r9eQYp3.pgp
Description: PGP signature