Yes, found that page right after I pressed "Send"... I'll use that page and tag the items with "F:" (for fast-track). If anyone disagrees with the classification, we can discuss it here, if in a few days there are no objections we can start moving the stuff over.
How are we going to keep track of the audit results? An audit is not very useful without an audit trail. My proposal is to add a "doc" property to appropriate directories in the code tree and use that to document how the code there was audited. This "doc" property could contain e.g. a short note like "rbuild was developed specifically for ReactOS, there is no non-free code from which it could have been reverse engineered" or it could point to a document stored elsewhere in svn providing more detail. I'm proposing "doc" as the name for the property and not "audit", "rev-eng" or something like that to keep it generic and set that property as the standard for future code development too.
Sounds good. There is a convention to prefix property names so it should be ros:doc.
How do we determine if someone is qualified or not to do an audit of a component? I did some work on freeldr, does that make me qualified 'cause I know what I'm talking about or am I not qualified because I'm not independent?
GvG
There was talk of two developers auditing the same code. I would trust people to follow the guidelines and thus say you are qualified to audit freeloader because 'you know what you are talking about' ;-)
Casper