On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 06:04 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
One remark to this paragraph:
> It is theoretically possible that the situation could arise where
> a release candidate is requested and built, and results in multiple
> blockers being reported and accepted, some of which are easy to fix and
> some of which are not; in this case a subsequent compose to test the easy
> fixes may be desirable, but could not be denoted a release candidate due
> to the presence of the other un-addressed blockers. In this case a new
> test compose could be requested. This is obviously somewhat confusing,
> however, so it is best to try and get all the blockers fixed and request
> a new release candidate instead.
I don't believe this is a good idea. I would rather have QA team vote
on "exceptional circumstances" and call it another RC. There's no
point in calling it TC just to satisfy some criteria.
TC and RC naming is confusing already. RC > TC, but not
alphabetically. Having e.g. TC1 < RC1 < RC2 < TC2 < RC3 is a complete
mess, arcane knowledge that only QA team would have. Since we
generally ask also other parties to perform testing, we should have
the naming pattern as obvious and straightforward as possible. Let's
call it RC and lets clearly state that this is an exceptional process
that should happen just rarely.
BTW, your line wrapping seems to be broken again :)
Yeah, I'm not super happy with it either. I mainly just included it
because we nearly actually *did* it once.
The thing is, I'm not really happy with the alternative you suggest
(calling it an RC) either. I really think it's a good thing to stick to
a strict definition, and a release candidate, strictly, is a build you
believe can be the release. A build which is known to include a blocker
simply is not a release candidate. It could not possibly be released.
So I'd love if we could come up with a third way. I'm wondering if we
should simply leave this unaddressed in the SOP and deal with it on the
fly if the situation ever arises. I think perhaps we should give any
such build a label that's different from both TC and RC, if it ever
happens.
Any bright ideas, anyone?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net