From: Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 08:02:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] Documentation: triangular workflow
Message-ID: <9DE343E5-99FE-4504-AA62-5647FBD76F27@grenoble-inp.org>
In-Reply-To: <vpqziqxbi3d.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

> 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.