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. :-) > As planned I forced a commit with a better comment once I was able to. Thank you, the new comment is excellent! I hope Intel won't sue you for it. :-) > Thanks for your patients, > > Stephan -- Yar _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
