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.
Our certified binaries go through a cross-functional release process before they are posted. Release engineering builds the binaries does the Subversion tests and builds the packaging. Our QA team does testing of the packaging and install/upgrade scenarios and then runs their own tests on the binaries to ensure they perform correctly as packaged. The packaging itself, including what is included or not included in the packages, undergoes review of product management, support and marketing. This step mainly happens when we propose significant changes in the packaging. Finally, our certified binaries are the ones we will back with our commercial support. We also have non-certified or "community" binaries. These are generally maintained by a community of volunteers/enthusiasts that want to maintain them. For example, Jeremy Whitlock has been doing this for OSX for a long time, and many of us at CollabNet that use OSX do testing for Jeremy and give him feedback. Ultimately, as the person who is doing the volunteering, Jeremy can decide what his binaries include, what the packaging does and when he wants to build them based on his own time. We do not try to make distinctions over one kind of binary being better than the other, in fact Jeremy includes things in his binaries that we will not include in our certifies binaries because we are not willing to provide the support for them. For us, it is about the process and whether or not we support them. 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. Mark On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-06-24, gst...@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> >> [...] >> >> > -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
