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

[Ge van Geldorp]

>   From: Casper Hornstrup
>  
> >   I'll make a 
> >  list of components which I think are suitable candidates for 
> >  fast-tracking and send that later today.
> >  
> >  GvG 
>  
>  I think we should track this here:
>  
>  http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Audit 
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.

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