[Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

[mike cloaked]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at 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 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.

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)

?
-- 
mike c