RE: [ros-dev] Propose standards for the audit

[Casper Hornstrup]

>   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