You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by hw...@apache.org on 2010/10/13 21:26:49 UTC
svn commit: r1022250 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Author: hwright
Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
New Revision: 1022250
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1022250&view=rev
Log:
* publish/packages.html
(suse): Add WANdisco downloads.
Modified:
subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Modified: subversion/site/publish/packages.html
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/packages.html?rev=1022250&r1=1022249&r2=1022250&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/site/publish/packages.html (original)
+++ subversion/site/publish/packages.html Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
@@ -319,6 +319,11 @@ $ make install clean</pre>
<li><p><a href="http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=ALL&p=1&q=subversion"
>OpenSUSE build service</a> (OpenSUSE and SLES, i586/x86_64)</p>
</li>
+<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
+ WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
+ <a href="http://www.wandisco.com/"
+ >WANdisco</a>)</p>
+</li>
</ul>
</div> <!-- .package -->
Re: svn commit: r1022250 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:24:36AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:20, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> > On 10/13/2010 04:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwright@apache.org wrote:
> >>> Author: hwright
> >>> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
> >>> New Revision: 1022250
> >>>
> >>
> >>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
> >>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
> >>
> >> What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop
> >> that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's.
> >
> > The idea here is that these producers claim to be do something more than
> > just mere packaging -- IP checks, additional QA, or whatever. We've had
> > this discussion already, and as I remember it, the devs were fine with this
> > language so long as it was clear that it was the producers doing the
> > certification, not this community. (Especially since the definition of
> > "certification" likely differs from producer to producer.)
>
> Right.
>
> There was also a suggestion to use "qualified" rather than "certified"
> since the latter does seem to imply that a set of certification rules
> exist. Given that this is the *project's* page, then there is an
> argument that we might somehow be defining those rules.
>
> I am +0 on switching to "qualified", and no opinion on current terminology.
I guess "certified" is mainly used for marketing reasons, rather than technical
reasons. So we might hit resistance trying to get the terminology changed.
We could require those who want to list "certified" binaries on our
binary packages page to also provide a link to a page explaining who
certified the binaries, and how. This would prevent misunderstandings.
Stefan
Re: svn commit: r1022250 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:24:36AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:20, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> > On 10/13/2010 04:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwright@apache.org wrote:
> >>> Author: hwright
> >>> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
> >>> New Revision: 1022250
> >>>
> >>
> >>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
> >>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
> >>
> >> What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop
> >> that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's.
> >
> > The idea here is that these producers claim to be do something more than
> > just mere packaging -- IP checks, additional QA, or whatever. We've had
> > this discussion already, and as I remember it, the devs were fine with this
> > language so long as it was clear that it was the producers doing the
> > certification, not this community. (Especially since the definition of
> > "certification" likely differs from producer to producer.)
>
> Right.
>
> There was also a suggestion to use "qualified" rather than "certified"
> since the latter does seem to imply that a set of certification rules
> exist. Given that this is the *project's* page, then there is an
> argument that we might somehow be defining those rules.
>
> I am +0 on switching to "qualified", and no opinion on current terminology.
I guess "certified" is mainly used for marketing reasons, rather than technical
reasons. So we might hit resistance trying to get the terminology changed.
We could require those who want to list "certified" binaries on our
binary packages page to also provide a link to a page explaining who
certified the binaries, and how. This would prevent misunderstandings.
Stefan
Re: svn commit: r1022250 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:20, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 04:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwright@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: hwright
>>> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
>>> New Revision: 1022250
>>>
>>
>>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
>>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
>>
>> What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop
>> that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's.
>
> The idea here is that these producers claim to be do something more than
> just mere packaging -- IP checks, additional QA, or whatever. We've had
> this discussion already, and as I remember it, the devs were fine with this
> language so long as it was clear that it was the producers doing the
> certification, not this community. (Especially since the definition of
> "certification" likely differs from producer to producer.)
Right.
There was also a suggestion to use "qualified" rather than "certified"
since the latter does seem to imply that a set of certification rules
exist. Given that this is the *project's* page, then there is an
argument that we might somehow be defining those rules.
I am +0 on switching to "qualified", and no opinion on current terminology.
Cheers,
-g
ps. and yes, look at history; the old phrasing was *really*
misleading, IMO; we're in a good/reasonable spot now tho tweaking per
community is always a possibility
Re: svn commit: r1022250 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 10/13/2010 04:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwright@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: hwright
>> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
>> New Revision: 1022250
>>
>
>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
>
> What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop
> that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's.
The idea here is that these producers claim to be do something more than
just mere packaging -- IP checks, additional QA, or whatever. We've had
this discussion already, and as I remember it, the devs were fine with this
language so long as it was clear that it was the producers doing the
certification, not this community. (Especially since the definition of
"certification" likely differs from producer to producer.)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: svn commit: r1022250 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html
Posted by Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>.
On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwright@apache.org wrote:
> Author: hwright
> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
> New Revision: 1022250
>
> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop
that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's.
Blair