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?
-- Adam WilliamsonFedora QA Community MonkeyIRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP:
adamw AT happyassassin .
nethttp://www.happyassassin.net