[Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
(Sorry to respond to this out-of-thread, but gmane doesn't seem to have
this thread indexed except for my original post.)
Jesse Keating wrote:
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 just including the unabbreviated version in each announcement?
For example, Fedora 15 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1), Fedora 15 Beta
Release Candidate 1 (RC1), etc. This way, the current abbreviations
(15-Beta.TC1, 15-Beta.RC1, etc.) used in both the wiki and the download
directories don't have to change. Currently all the names are of the
form Fedora m {Alpha,Beta,Final} {TC,RC}n. If the RCs are renamed as
you suggest, it seems to make the whole naming scheme more complicated,
since not only would each series of RCs have a different name, but the
TCs would have to be named differently from the RCs as well. Would they
be named the same as now (Alpha TC) or as Alpha Compose? If the
latter, would this cause problems since Alpha Compose and Alpha
Candidate both abbreviate as AC?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us a écrit: Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. for alpha we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the alpha release. for beta we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the beta release. for GA we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the GA release. Its the way we do it. For the sake of better search indexing, could you please point us to a link where this is documented? Thanks. -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/09/2011 02:35 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 13:19:55 -0700,
Jesse Keating jkeat...@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 ?
It does mean the name will change at each stage, but it should be more
descriptive as to what stage we're in.
Thoughts?
This seems reasonable. For those of us that worry about alpha and beta
releases the old scheme made sense, but people that aren't involved in
that could be confused and the scheme above would be clearer for that
group. With the lists being index by search engines it isn't difficult
for people who wouldn't understand the context to run across the terms,
so it's reasonable to worry about it.
Just a data point. I usually read the list, but I'm not really involved.
One minute ago I saw this thread and my first thought was
beta RC1? what's that?.
ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 is a lot better.
--
Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about alpha beta. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote: On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about alpha beta. Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. for alpha we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the alpha release. for beta we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the beta release. for GA we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the GA release. Its the way we do it. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 06:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us said: Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. I thought they were called test composes or TC, not RC. I dont see any reason why we cant use TC if RC is causing confusion. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Friday, April 08, 2011 01:11:18 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us said: Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. I thought they were called test composes or TC, not RC. the test compose is a compose we do before starting the RC composes to see what state we are in. Its a preperation thing we do. its never intended to be released as the alpha, beta, GA release, where RC composes are intended to be a Alpha, beta or GA release. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 10:55 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote: On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about alpha beta. Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. ... 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. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
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?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:25:31PM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@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
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] 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
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating jkeat...@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 cmad...@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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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 jkeat...@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
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Genes MailLists li...@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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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 awill...@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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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
Re: [Test-Announce] 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
[Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC1 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for installation [2] and desktop [3] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [4]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [5], or on the test list [6]. F15 Beta Blocker tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=657618 F15 Beta Nice-To-Have tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=657619 [1] http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Beta_Release_Criteria [5] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [6] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
