Re: HEADS UP: Name change committed

[David Rhodus <drhodus@xxxxxxxxx>]

Garance A Drosihn wrote:

> At 9:05 PM -0800 11/18/03, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > :That get me wondering what's DragonFly's plan to have branches?
> >
> >     I'd personally rather not have branches.  I think we can
> >     do it by simply using tags.
>
>
> 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]
"

Or something along those lines. This should prevent the huge mistake(s) 
of what
goes on now with MFC'ing items. This will allow users to try new 
features with
out affecting the rest of the system. Hence sh 1.27 needs a newer libc. 
Well the
packaging system will then make use of the vfs layering and install them 
both with
out conflicting with the current libc which everything currently uses. 
With the goals
DragonFly is working towards security branches won't be needed anymore. 
Users
will have fine grained control over what is installed and limitless ways 
they can run
their system.

-DR