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
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
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).
Received on 2010-06-25 20:41:15 CEST