Just another data point: Looking at PSARC/2008/549, the problematic
file is a file left by Aarti. However, I CANNOT EDIT THE OFFENSIVE
FILE. (EPERM).
I'm inclined to just remove it -- its a symlink to someplace else.
However, it does include the minutes from the meeting that was in fact open.
So, the point is, I can't even properly fix my own case. Can someone go
and just *fix* all the "open" case minutes that have the busted SUN
CONFIDENTIAL header on them... that's clearly a mistake on the part of
the ARC coordinator.
-- Garrett
Alan Burlison wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
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.
For 'manual' cases files need explicit tagging with a '.opensolaris.
suffix. And as you yourself have pointed out, this hasn't been done
properly. There are cases flagged as 'manual' with no '.opensolaris'
suffixes, which clearly shows that the 'manual' designation has been
sometimes been used improperly.
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.
I've repeatedly pointed out that the script is *not* just looking for
the word 'proprietary'. Please look at the redacted case list on
jurassic - the majority of cases have been redacted because they
contain the phrases "Sun Proprietary" or "Sun Confidential".
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
