. > > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number == > > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2' > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2). > > This seems like the closest possible way to map to our current system. > Again it's a bit weird at Final because there is no 'Final' milestone, > only 'RC', so 'RC1.1' would be 'TC1' and 'RC2.1' would be 'RC1', which > is kinda strange; again we could add a 'Final' milestone to Pungi, I > guess. > > I'm just not sure, as per 1), if we really *need* to maintain the TC/RC > distinction at least in terms of how the composes are labelled and > distributed. > I'm a fan of this approach, personally. John. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
