The word promulgated is stuffy and bureaucratic. It’s also uncommon and long. “Blessed” is on-theme, short and understandable.
We looked at blessed in the past, however we felt that blessed expressed a level of rigor in validation and testing that we couldn’t promise. If we stated that you could only use blessed tools to build something it implies that those tools have been validated to be the ones that we support/etc and it’s just not true of all the promulgated charms.
I agree that promulgated is a bit of a mess and I’ll never know how we ended up there, however honestly the big thing for us has been not beating that over folk’s heads much but just having the flat namespace speak for itself.
Ah, I understand the distinction. Could we make it clear via the UI that the charm is “blessed by author” not “blessed by Canonical”?
The problem is it isn’t. The promulgation is done by the charm store (Canonical), not the author. Blessed would have the same implication. I agree with your opinion of the use of promulgation but it is at least accurate and doesn’t express an opinion that isn’t backed up by testing.
I think “blessed” is an easier term to deal with.
Would it make sense to also support the inverse, and allow a charm to become “cursed” by the community? I’m kind of joking, but there’s a real use case. Thinking of all those half-baked, bash script hook precise charms in the charmstore. At some point in time, they probably worked enough for someone to push it to the store, but over time they were neglected and fell into bitrot and disrepair. Such is the nature of open-source. It’d be nice to curse such a charm. Basically, community self-moderation & curation. To avoid abuse, we could require a bug report with logs to go along with it. It’d be good feedback to charm authors who care, and good warning to stay away from the unmaintained ones.