On Dienstag, 17. September 2013, Michael Wiegand wrote:
> I'm in favor of moving openvas-plugins to a separate repository. In
> ancient times openvas-plugins was more clearly defined as a module, with
> a module version, Makefile and more or less a release cycle. This proved
> to be inefficient, leading to the sort of "rolling release" for the
> plugins through the NVT feeds.
yes, that were the times when there was still some C code in openvas-plugins
that needed to to be compiled with openvas-libraries.
> This divergence of general structure and release model would IMHO
> be one reason for splitting the repository. It would also enable the
> different repositories to adjust the source code management to their
> respective needs without affecting the other repositories, be it through
> the use of SVN keywords as discussed or through other changes.
we could call the new module "openvas-nvts" which is more adequate than
"plugins".
I wonder whether we should try to preserve old history or start from scratch
with the current set of NVTs (.nasl scripts)?
And how should the layout of the repository look like?
openvas-nvts/
2013/
abc.inc
or
openvas-nvts/
branches/
tags/
trunk/
2013/
abc.inc
?
Other aspects to consider?
Best
Jan
--
Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner | ++49-541-335084-0 | http://www.greenbone.net/
Greenbone Networks GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B
202460
Geschäftsführer: Lukas Grunwald, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
_______________________________________________
Openvas-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-devel
