wintermute-devel team mailing list archive

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

After testing, yes.

Me thinks we should focus on stabilty and polish, rather then new features.

On 31 August 2011 21:06, Adrian Borucki <gentoolx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 31 August 2011 21:24, danteashton@xxxxxxxxx <danteashton@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> How exactly do you mean, Adrian? That the packages be .deb (as opposed to
>> .rpm)?
>
> I mean that when new version of software arises we release new package and
> it is immediately installed as an upgrade.
>
>
>>
>>
> 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.
>>
> Yes, this is good and we can just make daily-builds for that.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 

-Danté Ashton

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici


Sent from Ubuntu