Thomas said it is clean:
[19:11] <drG4njubas> w3seek: are acledit and aclui clean? [19:12] <w3seek> absolutely [19:12] <w3seek> they don't contain anything undocumented [19:12] <drG4njubas> and msgina? [19:12] <w3seek> msgina as well, also documented in the platform sdk [19:12] <w3seek> besides, msgina is *very* incomplete [19:13] <drG4njubas> ok, I will unlock them
Ged Murphy wrote:
James Tabor wrote:
Ged Murphy wrote:
aleksey@studiocerebral.com wrote:
Author: tretiakov Date: Fri Mar 31 21:47:52 2006 New Revision: 21429
URL: http://svn.reactos.ru/svn/reactos?rev=21429&view=rev Log: [AUDIT] msgina is clean.
What is the reason for these being clean signed off as clean? Did you speak to the authors? Did you follow the conditions in the wiki?
I see no problem, unless one of the following did some no-nos and/or are naughty little programmers.
Me either. But my point is, what if Thomas used some reversing to obtain internal functions names for instance (highly unlikely as he doesn't work like that) I got stung unlocking CRT. I read through the code and it appeared completely harmless, until Alex pointed one or two things out.
There was no reason given for unlocking these libs apart from '* is clean'. What I'm asking is, how do you know? Just for historical purposes.
Ged.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev