Alan Burlison writes: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > IMO, there needs at minimum to be an override mechanism, where a file > > can be blessed as not having any bad assertions, without requiring the > > *content* of said file to be altered. > > There is one - 'manual' exposure. That's not been done properly either.
No, that should be "open" exposure. When a case is "open," it's supposed to be white-listed. It's all open material, and people commenting on it are duty-bound to avoid doing non-open things. "Manual" exposure requires changes to the materials in order to open things, which requires more work. > > I had at one time believed that the process of marking a case open > > (which does involve additional human review of the materials, btw), > > implicitly performed this "whitelisting" step. > > No, it doesn't. It's supposed to. That's why the older checks for 'Sun Proprietary' notices were so stringent -- we only wanted to make sure that clear and blatant errors were flagged, not every passing reference to the concept of proprietary data. I think John Plocher tried to point that out earlier. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
