I will describe a problem and my solution. I wonder how others
 are doing this.

 Problem:

 One wants to publish source code, but does not know whether
 the source code might contain confidential parts.

 Solution:

 One does a code review, and if the code is not found to
 contain confidential parts, it gets a "clearance stamp":

@de.dclj.ram.meta.description.Cleared()
public interface ComparableLocatableTuple { ... }

 Problem:

 After the clearance was granted, the code might be edited and
 the edit session might introduce confidential notes into the
 code, again. The clearance stamp then will be misleading.

 Solution:

 The clearance stamp gets a date and time:

@de.dclj.ram.meta.description.Cleared("slr@2006-01-31T19:14:50+01:00")
public interface ComparableLocatableTuple { ... }

 Now the publishing process will compare the time of the last
 modification of the file with the clearance stamp. If the
 last modification occured later than the clearance (plus
 a tolerance of some seconds), the clearance will be considered
 invalid. Files with invalid clearances will need a new
 review to be possibly re-granted clearance.

 Extended Solution:

 The review might annotate the type by code qualities such as
 documentation:

@de.dclj.ram.meta.description.Cleared("slr@2006-01-31T19:14:50+01:00")
@de.dclj.ram.meta.quality.Documented()
public interface ComparableLocatableTuple { ... }

 This means that the type declaration was sufficiently
 documented at the time of the review.

 Using this annotation, code which is not sufficiently
 documented can be found more easily in the source tree as a
 candidate for documentation sessions.

 If the file is modifid (code is added or modified) not only
 will the clearance become invalid but also the "Documented"
 stamp. (When one is in a hurry to extend features or remove a
 bug, one does not always take time and care to update the
 documentation immediatly.) So, the next code review also would
 have to decide whether the type declaration still is
 considered sufficiently documented.

 If not, the "Documented" stamp will be removed and the
 declaration then again is a candidate for a documentation
 session.

 In a similar manner other code qualities might be handled,
 such as "Tested".

 This whole effort will allow to:

   - make sure that only code is published that has
     a certain number of qualities (such as non-
     confidential or documented)

   - easily find those type declarations that lack certain
     qualities as candidates for edit sessions to
     improve them.