DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
Re: HEADS UP: Name change committed
Mike Porter <mupi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Wednesday 19 November 2003 12:55 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>> :> I think that once DragonFly goes "production", users will want
>> :> branches. They'll want something like the freebsd-security
>> :> (or maybe call it freebsd-safe) branch.
>> :I'm not sure that will be needed once we vfs layering is complete along
>> :with the packaging system. All of the security updates can be pushed out
>> :via a tagging inside the packaging system. Hence everything in the system
>> :will have a tag on it. ex:
>> :`whencefrom /bin/sh`
>> :"src/bin/sh/main.c 1.25
>> :Not uptodate; current: 1.27
>> :Download [Y/N]
>> Ok, I see what you are getting at. I think we definitely want to
>> push security updates through the packaging system, but I think
>> that is a separate issue from cvs tagging. In fact, security updates
>> to the base system via the packaging system could be driven from CVS.
> I am pretty sure that the -security "branch" in FBSD is handled through CVS
> tags. I guess if it comes right down to it, the entire *branch* is specified
> by a cvs tag. Keeping those tags up-to-date could involve some work by the
> people running the show, but I can't see it being any more work than trying
> to have two separate source pools, and occasionally copy stuff between them
But MFC and merging in general is not "copying stuff between separate source pools"
keepinga set of tags up to date in general is *more* work than having a branch and
worse, you can't really do that always without branching anyways.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+++ Out of cheese error +++