On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 14:31, Mark Phippard <markp...@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
