[1365] in athena10
Re: Apt repository layout
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Reed)
Sat Mar 7 15:21:19 2009
Cc: debathena@mit.edu
Message-Id: <34C3E89A-EE60-47C5-A590-A911900574E9@mit.edu>
From: Jonathan Reed <jdreed@MIT.EDU>
To: William Cattey <wdc@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <FB657F47-DD7A-47E3-A6A6-E14DD4CBB703@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:15:16 -0500
On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:43 PM, William Cattey wrote:
> The release testing cycle was published at:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/ist/topics/athena/testing-cycle.html
>
> Mitch does a very good job of remembering the phases.
It never occurred to be that we would have a web page...
Unless the auto-updater wants to be made aware of clusterinfo (which
may be more work than is necessary), we may want to merge some of the
clusters in moira. I think using alpha for -development is probably
the right thing. As for -proposed, I guess the question is whether we
want it to be tested outside IS&T and deployed to the clusters.
Evan's original description of -proposed compares it to being "in the
dev cell", which pretty clearly leans towards "beta" and not
"early" (early machines are in the athena cell). In fact, we may not
need the "early" cluster any more, I don't know.
So alpha = development, beta=proposed, and early machines get put in
either public or beta, depending on what their owners want.
Thoughts?
-Jon
