Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:41:02 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Stephan Uphoff <ups@FreeBSD.org>, Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c Message-ID: <4630659E.9040300@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20070426082958.GC53614@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200704211417.l3LEHUKK078832@repoman.freebsd.org> <462A27CD.5090006@freebsd.org> <1177170852.32761.0.camel@localhost> <20070424091858.GA31094@comp.chem.msu.su> <462FA0BC.8020207@freebsd.org> <20070426054228.GA53614@comp.chem.msu.su> <463049C6.9080100@samsco.org> <20070426082958.GC53614@comp.chem.msu.su>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:42:14AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> Yar Tikhiy wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote: >>>> Yar Tikhiy wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Stephan Uphoff wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ups 2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FreeBSD src repository >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Modified files: >>>>>>>> sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c >>>>>>>> sys/i386/i386 pmap.c >>>>>>>> Log: >>>>>>>> Modify TLB invalidation handling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reviewed by: alc@, peter@ >>>>>>>> MFC after: 1 week >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it >>>>>>> was done? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes. >>>>>> >>>>> Alas, we don't live in an ideal world. If we did, our commit >>>>> messages would always follow the well-known guideline: >>>>> >>>>> 0. Tell the essence of the change. >>>>> 1. Give the reason for the change. >>>>> 2. Explain the change unless it's trivial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-) >>> Was the change based on a document under NDA? Then this case raises >>> an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer >>> is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under >>> NDA? Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a >>> typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've >>> never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say >>> that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody >>> can RTFS. :-) >>> >> Wow, that was painful to read. NDAs that specifically allow source >> code licensing and distribution are quite common. They even get written >> and reviewed by lawyers! =-) > > It's a good news! But what about explaining the code to the public? > > - Mr. Developer, why does it take an ugly hack to make the device work? > - Can't tell ya, I'm under NDA. > I think you have to respect that John and Stephan were doing the right thing with this. This was no different than a security fix that gets committed before the vulnerability is disclosed. No one seems to get upset that the security team operates this way. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4630659E.9040300>