Greg Stein wrote: > 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.
Is "qualified" a more appropriate word for this purpose? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
