On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 08:43 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> We did have a few different bright ideas, but they're all
rather
> bigger
> changes that might be better off being discussed separately from this
> SOP.
>
> So how about this: what if we put the current draft into production
> but
> entirely leave out the paragraph about doing a TC release after an RC
> release, so the SOP just doesn't cover the case at all? That would at
> least document current practice reasonably well.
>
> Then I'll try and find some time to synthesize all the ideas that
> came
> later in this thread, about revising TC/RC naming and so on, and
> maybe
> go back in time as well because I recall some similar proposals being
> made on devel a year or so back. I'll try and come up with some kind
> of
> comprehensive proposal covering all those ideas, in terms of actually
> revising the process itself. This SOP proposal was really just
> intended
> to be a document _describing_ current practice, I didn't have
> changing
> the practice in mind when writing it.
>
> If that sounds okay to everyone, I'll put the SOP minus the
> controversial paragraph into 'production' tomorrow, and then work on
> the
> new 'change the process' proposal when I can. Thanks!
ACK
OK, I went ahead and did this -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_compose_request . I'll try to come
up with a synthesized proposal for improving the compose naming and so
resolving the TC/RC problem ASAP (or of course, if anyone wants to get
in first, they're more than welcome to!). Thanks for all the ideas
everyone!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net