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

[Ged Murphy]

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.