On 31 August 2011 21:24, danteash...@gmail.com <danteash...@gmail.com>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 <gento...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 31 August 2011 18:29, SII <dante.ash...@thesii.org> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~wintermute-devel Post to : wintermute-devel@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~wintermute-devel More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
