[6234] in Release_7.7_team
Re: publicity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan D Reed)
Thu Feb 26 19:49:39 2009
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:48:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan D Reed <jdreed@MIT.EDU>
To: Evan Broder <broder@MIT.EDU>
cc: William Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>, release-team@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <49A72E01.50502@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64L.0902261941520.30792@infinite-loop.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.00
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Evan Broder wrote:
> I like debathena.mit.edu/beta/ - I know it was created to preview what a
> merged website looks like, but calling this "Debathena Beta" seems more
> or less appropriate.
>
That was my thinking, but I wasn't sure if there would be any objections
to calling it "Debathena Beta".
This idea has the following advantages:
- The debathena website can be an evolving concept, and trivially replace
debathena.mit.edu when we're ready.
- The URL matches the naming scheme.
- We don't have to migrate content formats twice.
There are a couple of cons, as I see it:
- It requires merging the installers (we should have one installer page).
This means that debathena-workstation and lower should have the same
packages across both repos. (ie: if I install debathena-workstation from
the debathena repo, I should get exactly what I get from the athena10
repo). I think this is mostly true, right? We would have to merge the
greeters, I guess. I don't care if cluster machines stick with the
athena10 repo for now, but since we're planning on merging, we should
minimize the number of machines that we don't control which are using the
athena10 repo.
- Hrm, I guess that's only one con.
Thoughts?
-Jon
