On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote: > . > > > > > > == 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. With weirdly-named RCs, or by adding a 'Final' milestone to Pungi? -- Adam WilliamsonFedora QA Community MonkeyIRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . nethttp://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
