22 Sep
2007
22 Sep
'07
7:22 p.m.
On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:19 PM, João Jerónimo wrote:
The point of a possible 3rd party audit is raising the
legal
credibility of
the ReactOS project by ensuring that no tainted code is left in the
source
tree, right?
The word "tainted" is actually quite wrong, and is being
misused
everywhere.
A tea was tainted by polonium in a not-so-recent accident in the UK.
ReactOS is not a tea, and we have no "polonium" commiters.
There will be a WineConf event in 1 or 2 weeks, and they say they are
going to clear up the legal situation around Wine, around SFLC audit
and around requirements to the developers, whose code may be commited
to the tree.
When they do it, I would be very glad to know those requirements, and
enforce them on ReactOS developers, so that we are on the common ground.
Well, if the project is going to wait until more modules stabilize,
won't
this stabilization process obfuscate most of the tainted source
code, and
make them hard to find?
Your mind is ahead of you. "Taint obfuscated code", "Obfuscate
tainted code", ...
Your question is obfuscated and may be tainted, I won't answer it.
WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.