Thanks, folks!
> On 2022-10-05, David A. Wheeler wrote: >>> On Oct 5, 2022, at 3:50 PM, Chris Lamb <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Please review the draft for September's Reproducible Builds report: >>> >>> https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2022-09/?draft >> >> As always, thanks! A few proposed tweaks below. >> >> --- David A. Wheeler >> >> ============ >> >> First, an easy nit: >> s/David Wheeler/David A. Wheeler/g >> if you would please. I do answer to "David" (and many other things!). >> However, there are a ridiculous number of "David Wheelers", so I always use >> my initial >> initial in written materials to reduce confusion. > > Fixed. > >> Second: >>> David Wheeler also pointed out that there are some potential upcoming >>> changes to the OpenSSF Best Practices badge for open source software in >>> relation to reproducibility. Whilst the badge programme has three >>> certification levels (“passing”, “silver” and “gold”), the “gold” level >>> includes the criterion that “The project MUST have a reproducible build”. >> This was merely a proposal for a change, based on some projects' requests - >> whether or not it happens depends on feedback! >> Indeed, based on current feedback I doubt it'll go anywhere. So I think it'd >> be clearer written this way: >>> David A. Wheeler also posted a proposed change to the OpenSSF Best >>> Practices badge for open source software in relation to reproducible >>> builds. Whilst the badge programme has three certification levels >>> (“passing”, “silver” and “gold”), the “gold” level includes the criterion >>> that “The project MUST have a reproducible build”. >> Then delete the "However," that follows it, and change "we raised" to "were >> raised". > > Done. Noticed another typo when I added that part too ...
