On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Alan Burlison <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark Martin wrote: > >> I'm requesting a detailed specification for how case materials are >> redacted on the ARC caselog site. The information that appears at >> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/arc-faq/arc-publish-historical-checklist/ >> refers to publishing /historical/ cases, and, while some of the rule >> specifications that exist there presumably are being applied to NON >> historical cases, is clearly not a complete description of the applied >> rules. Additionally, the discussion that occurred in March of '09 >> (http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/arc-discuss/2009-March/000819.html) >> does not contain enough information to prevent automatic case redaction from >> occurring where it really shouldn't. This information should include both >> redaction and simple file ignoring. > > I've already addressed this question on arc-discuss, and explained why we > can't discuss the exact details. > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/arc-discuss/2009-September/000967.html
Apologies, but where exactly in that email are you describing *why* you can't discuss details? "am not at liberty"? If you are not able to explain the rules for making products I've contributed to the community unavailable, then to whom do I re-address this request? _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
