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

[Ged Murphy]

[e-mail] 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?

[James Tabor]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> [e-mail] 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.

Here is some of the log,

sedwards, move some SDK headers to the SDK, convert filenames and include statements to lowercase as 
everything else is in lowercase.

mf,  migrate substitution keywords to SVN.

weiden, the org author and did most of the work!

To see the rest,
http://svn.reactos.ru/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/dll/win32/msgina/msgina.c?vi...

[Ged Murphy]

James Tabor wrote:
> Ged Murphy wrote:
> > [e-mail] 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.

[Saveliy Tretiakov]

Thomas said it is clean:

[19:11] <drG4njubas> w3seek: are acledit and aclui clean?
[19:12] <w3seek> absolutely
[19:12] <w3seek> they don't contain anything undocumented
[19:12] <drG4njubas> and msgina?
[19:12] <w3seek> msgina as well, also documented in the platform sdk
[19:12] <w3seek> besides, msgina is *very* incomplete
[19:13] <drG4njubas> ok, I will unlock them

Ged Murphy wrote:
> James Tabor wrote:
> > Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > [e-mail] 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.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> 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 told him that I consider them clean. There's no internal functions in
msgina that I can remember writing. All exported functions were
documented. Apart from that, it's a very minimalistic and very
incomplete implementation.

The only DLL of those three unlocked that is not officially documented
is acledit. I took all information from th sysinternals homepage. It
doesn't contain any code.

- Thomas

[Ged Murphy]

Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
> Ged Murphy wrote:
> > 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 told him that I consider them clean. There's no internal functions in
> msgina that I can remember writing. All exported functions were
> documented. Apart from that, it's a very minimalistic and very
> incomplete implementation.
>
> The only DLL of those three unlocked that is not officially documented
> is acledit. I took all information from th sysinternals homepage. It
> doesn't contain any code.
> Thomas

Cool :)
I just think we need to leave info in the log to explain why something 
was unlocked, for historical purposes.

Ged.

[Aleksey Bragin]

I mention this now, so developers *please pay attention to this*.

When you unlock the source code which are considered good, you should 
provide the following log message:
[AUDIT]
path to and name of the module:
- The reasons, why this module has been unlocked. Try to avoid obvious, 
unless it really really is obvious (e.g. functions < 5 LOC, Wine-synced 
module, etc). Also, if you created a doc in the audit folder, then just 
mention it here.

For a sample of such audit message please have a look at my and peterw's 
commits.

Thanks,
Aleksey Bragin.