Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-diffs] [tretiakov] 21429: [AUDIT] msgina is clean.

[Saveliy Tretiakov]

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(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>