> Subject: Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals > From: adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rel-eng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:33:41 -0800 > > 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? With Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2' (Alpha TC2), etc. It does map over to our current process rather well, and won't involve changes to Pungi that might break things. The modification I would suggest, however, is that instead of RC2.x for Final, simply start doing 'Production' builds. If a particular production build passes, then that's what we ship as final. John. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
