On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>> Its the way we do it.
>> F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of "Beta RC" on
>> devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
>> statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
>
> This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one that started referring to
> these composes as "release candidates" more vocally. We needed a way to
> reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
> it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
> me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
>
> Would it make more sense to refer to these as "Alpha Candidate", "Beta
> Candidate" and "Release Candidate" ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
>
> It does mean the name will change at each stage, but it should be more
> descriptive as to what stage we're in.
How about the sequence:
Fn-Alpha-Pre.1 Fn-Alpha-Pre.2 ..... Fn-Alpha
Fn-Beta-Pre.1 Fn-Beta-Pre.2 Fn-Beta-Pre.3 .... Fn-Beta
Fn-RC1 Fn-RC2 Fn-RC3... Fn (=release)
?
--
mike c
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
