(Sorry to respond to this out-of-thread, but gmane doesn't seem to have
this thread indexed except for my original post.)
Jesse Keating wrote:
This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one that started referring
to these composes as release candidates more vocally. We needed a
way to
Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us a écrit:
Chris its the teminology we have always used.
each phase has a series of release candidates.
for alpha we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the
release criteria, it then becomes the alpha release.
for beta we do a series of RC
On 04/09/2011 02:35 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 13:19:55 -0700,
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
It does mean the name will
On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Fedora 15 Beta RC1
Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two
distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them
together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about
alpha beta.
--
devel mailing
On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Fedora 15 Beta RC1
Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two
distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them
together, just like it would be
On 04/08/2011 06:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us said:
Chris its the teminology we have always used.
each phase has a series of release candidates.
I thought they were called test composes or TC, not RC.
I dont see any reason why we cant use TC if RC
On Friday, April 08, 2011 01:11:18 PM Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us said:
Chris its the teminology we have always used.
each phase has a series of release candidates.
I thought they were called test composes or TC, not RC.
the test compose is a compose
On 04/08/2011 10:55 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Fedora 15 Beta RC1
Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two
distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:25:31PM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 13:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com said:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
That sounds good to me; each is distinguished frmo the other and clearly
describes what it is.
--
Chris
On 04/08/2011 04:25 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
...
How about the sequence:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
What is confusing about:
Alpha-1, Alpha-2 ... Alpha-N
Beta-1 Beta-2 Beta-N
RC-1, RC-2 ... RC-N
Released.
Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate,
On 04/08/2011 02:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:37 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate, or an
alpha or beta candidate. We have ordinal numbers on them ... so just use
them.
.. if RC1 is lacking - fine - we'll move to RC2 ... etc.
My opinion of
I wasn't aware of the distinction between the candidates and the
naming of the files downloaded didn't help, so I think some
clarification might be worthwhile.
By downloading a couple of TCs I came across this problem:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694915
-Cam
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011
On 04/08/2011 05:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:37 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far
and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure
Your scheme doesn't preserve the
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 17:26 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
You're absolutely right ... :-) - lack of thinking on my part
Your scheme does indeed have that, as does:
Builds Release
--- ---
Alpha-0.1,
On 04/08/2011 01:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
WFM!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC1 is now available
for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and
testing instructions.
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Desktop:
21 matches
Mail list logo
