Re: [ros-dev] Vote: code auditing

[David Hinz]

I think it's a bit complicated, as you have to mess around alot with 
different makefiles, but it _could_ work.

But the thing is, this actually is like locking all unaudited modules in 
trunk and let devs allow to change things in the audited modules. Your 
way is just a bit more complicated.

I'm not an expert, so just wait for the devs' comments.

Greets,

David Hinz

Timo Kreuzer schrieb:
>   This is my first post to the ros-dev, but I would like
> to make some 
>  proposals. I have already posted in the forum, but nobody seems to 
>  notice ;-)
>  
>  As this topic seems to be very actual now, I will repeat it here. So 
>  here are my ideas about the code audit:
>  
>  1.) Keep the old and new code seperated like this:
>  
>  - divide the repositories, so that files are either in the audited or in 
>  the old repository.
>  
>  - Make an additional makefile (or add an entry to the existing one) in 
>  the new repository (together with the needed rbuild files), wich will be 
>  able to build the complete reactos from the files from both repositories.
>  
>  - files from both repositories could be put in two subfolders of a folder:
>  ROS\auditet\...
>  ROS\old\...
>  
>  - so "make full" for example could then build the complete reactos
>  
>  This has several advantages, I think:
>  - Every file is there only once, you would not have to mess around with 
>  different versions of a file, because of a patch in only one repository
>  - When working on something wich is in the new repository, you would not 
>  have to test it in both repositories or commit it to both repositories.
>  - When you build the sources you will always build the newest ones 
>  either updated ones from the old repository or from the audited one.
>  - you can easyly test your work on files in the new repository or 
>  rewritten parts from the old repository, because all the needed files 
>  are already there and you can also directly test it in reactos.
>  - when moving a file to the new repository, there's no need to test if 
>  it builds, if it did before.
>  
>  2.) Mark the old code:
>  Another thing I thought about: Maybe the files that are not audited 
>  should be marked in the header, so the code is not excidently included 
>  in another OSS and maybe even back to ROS later. Maybe even change the 
>  license, so the source is only alowed to be used for informational 
>  purposes, but is not to be included in other OSS. The audited files 
>  could also be marked like "This file was audited on ../../.. revision 
>  .... by ..."
>  
>  Both ideas would allow the devs and others to work on ROS like before 
>  and it would be almost as clean as the "current" plan.
>  
>  I hope I could make it clear enough, what I mean.
>  What do you think about these ideas?
>  
>  -- ThePhysicist