Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] Documentation: triangular workflow
- From
- Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org>
- Date
- Jun 7, 2016, 08:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <9DE343E5-99FE-4504-AA62-5647FBD76F27@grenoble-inp.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqziqxbi3d.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
Show 16 quoted lines
> Le 7 juin 2016 à 08:58, Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr> a écrit : > > "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes: > >> Given that clarification I'd be happier to go with it being one's >> 'Publish' repo. >> >> My initial reticence was because of the association of "publish" with >> vanity publishing and other forms of over-sharing and self promotion. >> >> A clarification/explanation that calling it a 'publish' repo is about >> granting access, and possible open access, would make it more >> acceptable. > > I think "publish" is the best we found up to now. >
It seems that we choose ‘publish’. I’ll send the v3 of the patch soon.