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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4630659E.9040300>