What does "certified" mean at all? That sounds like some kind of
certifying authority exists, which is not the case. The binaries are
built and supported by these various companies. "self-certify" is kind
of an oxymoron in my book.
I'm certainly open to re-phrasing by the companies with these
binaries. I just wanted to get rid of the concept of the "certified"
concept. And if the community thinks the term "certified" is okay...
then we can put it back. But I think it is very misleading.
Maybe there is another word that better expresses what you're thinking
by "certified"?
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:45, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24, gstein_at_apache.org wrote:
>> Author: gstein
>> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:40:44 2010
>> New Revision: 957751
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=957751&view=rev
>> Log:
>> The Subversion community does not "certify" any binaries. These particular
>> binaries have professional support behind them, but they are not "certified"
>
> Those binaries are not certified by the Subversion community, but by
> CollabNet and WANdisco. There was a lack of clarity over who is
> certifying them. If you don't mind, I'd like to use this wording:
>
> "(professionally supported and certified by ...)"
>
> - Julian
>
>
>> * /site/publish/packages.html:
>> (...): adjust some terminology
>
> [...]
>> <li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads?type=debian5">
>> - WANdisco</a> (certified binaries; maintained by
>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported by
>> <a href="http://www.wandisco.com/"
>> >WANdisco</a>)</p>
>> </li>
> [...]
>
>
Received on 2010-06-25 20:10:49 CEST