On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:37 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: > Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate, or an > alpha or beta candidate. We have ordinal numbers on them ... so just use > them. > > .. if RC1 is lacking - fine - we'll move to RC2 ... etc. > > My opinion of course :-) The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure they don't provide a really bad impression of the project and to make sure they actually provide for useful testing and feedback from 'normal' testers. The candidate builds get distributed and promoted in a very restricted way (they live on one server and are announced on the test and desktop mailing lists) and exist so that we can do testing to make sure they meet the standards expected of a 'public' release. Your scheme doesn't preserve the distinction between these different types of builds. To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know for sure if they even work. We've had more than one TC build (even RC build) that was effectively DOA. Hell, on the Beta RC1 we span yesterday, anaconda cannot be run from any live image; that's not something we want to be putting out as a 'public' release, even a pre-release. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
