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

[Ged Murphy]

James Tabor wrote:
> Ged Murphy wrote:
>> aleksey at 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.