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

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:
>>
>>> aleksey@... 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
> Ros-dev@...
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>