On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 08:43 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > > We did have a few different bright ideas, but they're all rather > > bigger > > changes that might be better off being discussed separately from this > > SOP. > > > > So how about this: what if we put the current draft into production > > but > > entirely leave out the paragraph about doing a TC release after an RC > > release, so the SOP just doesn't cover the case at all? That would at > > least document current practice reasonably well. > > > > Then I'll try and find some time to synthesize all the ideas that > > came > > later in this thread, about revising TC/RC naming and so on, and > > maybe > > go back in time as well because I recall some similar proposals being > > made on devel a year or so back. I'll try and come up with some kind > > of > > comprehensive proposal covering all those ideas, in terms of actually > > revising the process itself. This SOP proposal was really just > > intended > > to be a document _describing_ current practice, I didn't have > > changing > > the practice in mind when writing it. > > > > If that sounds okay to everyone, I'll put the SOP minus the > > controversial paragraph into 'production' tomorrow, and then work on > > the > > new 'change the process' proposal when I can. Thanks! > > ACK OK, I went ahead and did this - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_compose_request . I'll try to come up with a synthesized proposal for improving the compose naming and so resolving the TC/RC problem ASAP (or of course, if anyone wants to get in first, they're more than welcome to!). Thanks for all the ideas everyone! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
