On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 20:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Andre Robatino <robatino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > BTW, the same name issue appears when booting the install images - > they are named "20-Beta", instead of "20-Beta-TC1". How important is > it to name the TCs differently? It seems like just a user convenience > (and a hassle for whoever does the compose), and the RCs are named > identically in any case, so the user still has to be careful. I put > each compose in a separate directory, with ISOs named the same as in > the corresponding CHECKSUM file, so they can be verified with > "sha256sum -c *-CHECKSUM", and I tell them apart by directory. It > doesn't help me much to have the TCs, but not the RCs, named uniquely. > > In principle it would be nice if both TCs and RCs were named > uniquely, but I realize it would be even more of a hassle to rename > the RC and recreate/edit the checksum file when one is picked as Gold. It would defeat the entire point of having a RC. A TC can NEVER be the final released bits. A RC could be, and if it is, it's just released. Changing it at all after it's been tested means you aren't actually testing the thing you are releasing. You are testing something else and hoping you don't mess up something in changing it. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
