FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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 change it.
>
> 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
> reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
> it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
> me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
>
> 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 change at each stage, but it should be more
> descriptive as to what stage we're in.
>
> Thoughts?

works for me.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 08:37 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

Once upon a time, Jesse Keating <jkeating@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 Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 08:37 PM
Genes MailLists
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

On 04/08/2011 04:25 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@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:
> Fn-Alpha-Pre.1 Fn-Alpha-Pre.2 ..... Fn-Alpha
> Fn-Beta-Pre.1 Fn-Beta-Pre.2 Fn-Beta-Pre.3 .... Fn-Beta
> Fn-RC1 Fn-RC2 Fn-RC3... Fn (=release)
>
> ?

I find both above failing in minimal surprise ... and adding unneeded
complexity.

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, 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 course :-)




--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 08:43 PM
mike cloaked
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Genes MailLists <lists@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, 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.

That would work - though it needs a clear criterion for deciding when
Alpha-N should become Beta-1 ? Similar for the other transition from
Beta to RC.

I guess it is easier to decide when enough blockers are resolved to go
from RC to GA.

--
mike c
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:13 PM
"Nathanael D. Noblet"
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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.
>
> 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
> reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
> it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
> me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
>
> 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 change at each stage, but it should be more
> descriptive as to what stage we're in.
>
> Thoughts?

I like this as well. Seems clear, and then when the candidate
'graduates' it just becomes 'Alpha', 'Beta' release.... Seems clear to me.


--
Nathanael d. Noblet
t 403.875.4613
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:14 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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 course :-)

The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far
and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure
they don't provide a really bad impression of the project and to make
sure they actually provide for useful testing and feedback from 'normal'
testers. The candidate builds get distributed and promoted in a very
restricted way (they live on one server and are announced on the test
and desktop mailing lists) and exist so that we can do testing to make
sure they meet the standards expected of a 'public' release.

Your scheme doesn't preserve the distinction between these different
types of builds.

To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know
for sure if they even work. We've had more than one TC build (even RC
build) that was effectively DOA. Hell, on the Beta RC1 we span
yesterday, anaconda cannot be run from any live image; that's not
something we want to be putting out as a 'public' release, even a
pre-release.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:18 PM
Camilo Mesias
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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 at 10:14 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 course :-)
>
> The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far
> and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure
> they don't provide a really bad impression of the project and to make
> sure they actually provide for useful testing and feedback from 'normal'
> testers. The candidate builds get distributed and promoted in a very
> restricted way (they live on one server and are announced on the test
> and desktop mailing lists) and exist so that we can do testing to make
> sure they meet the standards expected of a 'public' release.
>
> Your scheme doesn't preserve the distinction between these different
> types of builds.
>
> To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know
> for sure if they even work. We've had more than one TC build (even RC
> build) that was effectively DOA. Hell, on the Beta RC1 we span
> yesterday, anaconda cannot be run from any live image; that's not
> something we want to be putting out as a 'public' release, even a
> pre-release.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:26 PM
Genes MailLists
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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 distinction between these different
> types of builds.
>
> To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know
>
...


You're absolutely right ... :-) - lack of thinking on my part

Your scheme does indeed have that, as does:

Builds Release
----------------------------------- -------
Alpha-0.1, Alpha-0.2 ... Alpha-0.9 => Alpha-1
Alpha-1.1 ... Alpha-1.13 => Alpha-2


Similarly for Beta, and RC ..






--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:32 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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, Alpha-0.2 ... Alpha-0.9 => Alpha-1
> Alpha-1.1 ... Alpha-1.13 => Alpha-2
>
>
> Similarly for Beta, and RC ..

We don't have numbered Alpha and Beta releases (we don't do Alpha 1,
Alpha 2 etc - we just do Alpha and Beta). We also don't do an 'RC'
release: we have release candidates for the final (GA) release.

Alpha-0.1, Alpha-0.2, Alpha
Beta-0.1, Beta-0.2, Beta
RC1, RC2, Final

would work, but I dunno, I like Jesse's scheme, it's less of a change.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:50 PM
Christopher Aillon
 
Default Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org