On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 11:20 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > > Calling test composes something with "alpha" in the name is also a problem. > > The word "alpha" describes the test compose because TC1 by itself could apply to either the pre-alpha, pre-beta, or pre-final releases. So if alpha isn't used as a descriptor, then you need to come up with something equally unambiguous to replace the current naming scheme, which I find unambiguous. > > Are you proposing something like: > > ATest1, ATest2, ATest3, and then once alpha release criteria are met, the last test is renamed to Alpha? And likewise there would be BTest1, BTest2, BTest3, and the last one, which meats beta release criteria, it is renamed to Beta? > > *shrug* OK. I am however confused on the distinction between TC's and RC's. The difference is described in the candidate build request SOP: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_compose_request "A test compose is defined as a set of Fedora images built, from the current Branched tree, shortly prior to the Change Deadline (freeze) for one of the three Fedora release phases (Alpha, Beta and Final), for the purposes of performing release validation testing. It differs from a release candidate in that it is built before, not after, the Change Deadline and hence there is no possibility of its being declared gold and released as the Alpha, Beta or Final release." "A release candidate is defined as a set of Fedora images built, from the current Branched tree, after the Change Deadline (freeze) for one of the three Fedora release phases (Alpha, Beta and Final) and using a package set which is not known to contain any blocker bugs, for the purposes of performing release validation testing. It differs from a test compose in that it is built after the Change Deadline and may be declared gold and released as the Alpha, Beta or Final release if it passes all validation tests." So, this actually brings up a problem with the general idea of adjusting the TC/RC naming process; we could really name TCs whatever the hell we like, but that doesn't apply to RCs. Fedora RCs are true 'release candidates': they are built precisely as if they were going to be the actual released image. RC images don't have Alpha-RC1 or Alpha-RC2 or Beta-RC3 or whatever in their filenames and so on: they just say 'Alpha' or 'Beta'. When one of the builds passes validation we simply declare that build to be the official build and release it as-is: the build itself does not get changed in any way, we don't have to do a new 'proper' build from the same base or rename any files, we literally take the 'approved RC' images and release them. There are obviously good reasons for doing things this way - it's the most foolproof system for ensuring that what we actually release, actually works, because what we actually release is precisely what we tested. Not a rebuild, not a rename, the precise same thing. We could refer to them as something different in discussion and announcement emails, I guess, but the thing is...they really _are_ release candidates. This is precisely the right name for them. I'm not sure any other name actually makes sense. Though if anyone has a smart idea, please... -- 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
