[ros-dev] Re: Undocumented APIs
mf at mufunyo.net
Wed Feb 1 20:59:32 CET 2006
Steven Edwards wrote:
> I would like to agree on language and put it to the standard 7 day
> vote. The emergency IRC meeting left some developers out due to time
> constraints. I think we all agree on the clean room, one reverses the
> other implements policy but I want to be sure we have the correct
> language in place.
After skyping with GreatLord (who still disagrees with the amendment as
it is now) I would like to see "EITHER" clarified in the wording. You
*either* supply documentation, *or* a test case. If you can't find
documentation or a test case, you make said documentation or test case.
In your current wording it could be misunderstood as "you need to supply
documentation *and* a test case", which would simply be asking too much,
at least imho. A lot of software use dirty tricks like direct binary
addressing of private APIs (even for APIs that have perfectly functional
public counterparts), for which finding test cases isn't realistic.
Documenting all the addresses as obtained by disassembly and then having
someone else implement it all, on the other hand, is realistic.
On another note, on #reactos-dev tamlin stated today:
17:37 <+tamlin> mf: I disagree that it is the problem. It is "only" one
of many current problems as I see it. I also don't see it as all
wrinkles as of yet having been ironed out.
18:47 <+tamlin> I came to think of something (I'm not suggesting this as
workaround of anything, for anything): Does anyone really *know* what
the legal status of "Trade Secret" (USA or other nations) is, if such
information is publically available - whether the information, or even
source code, has been acquired by legal or illegal means.
18:49 <+tamlin> I'm specifically thinking of Google, that I know at
least in the past have made what's often referred to "proprietary,
unpublished source code" available to anyone on the planet with a web
browser and an internet connection.
More information about the Ros-dev