(Sorry to respond to this out-of-thread, but gmane doesn't seem to have
this thread indexed except for my original post.)
Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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 just including the unabbreviated version in each announcement?
For example, "Fedora 15 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1)", "Fedora 15 Beta
Release Candidate 1 (RC1)", etc. This way, the current abbreviations
(15-Beta.TC1, 15-Beta.RC1, etc.) used in both the wiki and the download
directories don't have to change. Currently all the names are of the
form "Fedora m {Alpha,Beta,Final} {TC,RC}n". If the RCs are renamed as
you suggest, it seems to make the whole naming scheme more complicated,
since not only would each series of RCs have a different name, but the
TCs would have to be named differently from the RCs as well. Would they
be named the same as now ("Alpha TC") or as "Alpha Compose"? If the
latter, would this cause problems since "Alpha Compose" and "Alpha
Candidate" both abbreviate as "AC"?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
