[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r957751 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:40:34 -0400

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 14:31, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> The distinction we make internally at CollabNet over when we use the
> term certified on our binaries is the process they go through before
> posting.
>
>...explanation...

Thanks for that explanation. It helps below:

>...
> I was fine with your wording change, and I am also fine with Julian's
> corrections.  If you think his changes are confusing I have no
> objection to removing those changes.  FWIW, I do think Julian's
> wording makes it plainly clear that the certification is coming from
> the company and not the Subversion project.

I do think his wording is better than before my changes, but as I
mentioned: any use of the word "certify" implies some kind of
authority. Thus, the use implies somebody is reviewing and approving
the process of creating those binaries.

From your description, I can certainly understand what *you* mean by
"certified", but then it seems to lead to "who reviewed their
procedures and has certified it?" We have no ISO-9000 for building
binaries :-P

I'd be totally fine with the phrase "internally-certified", if that
works for you guys. (C. Mike can tell us whether to keep/lose that
hyphen :-P )

That phrasing makes it much more clear that the certification process
is complete internal to the supporting company. That there isn't a
higher authority (which could be read as the community).

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-06-25 20:41:15 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.