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

[Casey Dahlin]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:25:31PM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
> 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)
> 

That is certainly a different color bikeshed from the one Jesse
suggested :)

Its probably best that it be decided for certain /if/ we want to change
before we decide what the new naming convention be. Then we get the
inevitable bikeshedding argument out from under the actual issue that's
been raised here.

--CJD