On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:52 -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. My question was what you thought about the awkward 'Final' case, where there is currently no 'Final' milestone (only 'RC'). > 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. I don't think you quite get the Pungi requirements here. Pungi has three compose types, 'nightly', 'test', 'and 'production'. All milestone builds would be expected to be 'production' builds - that is all TCs and RCs for all milestones, Alpha Beta and Final. All 'production' composes are, I believe, required to specify a milestone, it cannot be omitted. -- 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: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
