wintermute-devel team mailing list archive

["danteashton@xxxxxxxxx" <danteashton@xxxxxxxxx>]

How exactly do you mean, Adrian? That the packages be .deb (as opposed to
.rpm)?

I do think we should retain versioning;

Lets say we have 1.0.0 released
1.0.1 would lead up to the next minor 'landmark' (when released, all ISO's
etc would default to that)
and 1.1.0 is more of a landmark, rather then a release.


On 31 August 2011 20:15, Adrian Borucki <gentoolx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 31 August 2011 18:29, SII <dante.ashton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I've been thinking; if everything goes to plan, WIntermute should be able
>> to automatically upgrade itself to the latest version.
>> So, with that in mind, when the system is finally ready to be released;
>> why don't we go with a rolling release model, instead of a versioned one?
>>
> Yes, that would be more flexible for such system. We only have to make sure
> that constant flow of changes won't turn into a mess. Of course, some
> information about version is always useful for management purposes. I am
> only wondering how to manage such scheme where different parts of system can
> be upgraded independently. By the way, will Wintermute use DEB packages for
> software managing internals or should we design something different
> (possibly still based on packages)?




-- 

-Danté Ashton

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici


Sent from Ubuntu