* Jan-Oliver Wagner [17. Sep 2013]: > On Dienstag, 17. September 2013, Michael Wiegand wrote: > > 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".
Agreed. "plugins" has always been to generic and is already used better for more specific things like the Report Format Plugins. "openvas-nvts" sounds sensible to me. > I wonder whether we should try to preserve old history or start from scratch > with the current set of NVTs (.nasl scripts)? I do not have a strong preference either way. > And how should the layout of the repository look like? > openvas-nvts/ > 2013/ > abc.inc > > or > > openvas-nvts/ > branches/ > tags/ > trunk/ > 2013/ > abc.inc > > ? IMHO, "branches/" and "tags/" only make sense if we really want to use them. I might be missing something, but I cannot come up with a situation where using them sounds like a good idea. > Other aspects to consider? The is also a "tools/" directory in openvas-plugins, along with documentation and license files. Where would they be placed in your proposal? Regards, Michael -- Michael Wiegand | Greenbone Networks GmbH | http://www.greenbone.net/ Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany | AG Osnabrück, HR B 202460 Executive Directors: Lukas Grunwald, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner _______________________________________________ Openvas-devel mailing list Openvas-devel@wald.intevation.org https://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-devel
