Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 16:21 +, you wrote: > Yeah, I have ideas, but seems like there might be another day of some > discussion before I try to formally reframe a design doc. Here’s the > direction I'm thinking: I like the process you sketch, that sounds like the right way to go to me. A

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> On May 24, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Matthias Vallentin wrote: > > If I understold it correctly, I don't think that the central CBAN > repository will accumulate clutter. The automatic checks will help > simply age out repos that do not comply with the minimal standards. It's > up

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

(I will respond to the actual proposal in more depth later.) > That is a good point. I am more concerned about accumulating clutter. If I understold it correctly, I don't think that the central CBAN repository will accumulate clutter. The automatic checks will help simply age out repos that do

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> - it’s not a big deal for a submodule to temporarily enter in to a broken > state — cban users can always roll back to a previous version or just > uninstall it. It’s up to the community to communicate/collaborate directly > w/ the author here to get things fixed. I really like the

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> On May 24, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Slagell, Adam J wrote: > > I propose that we keep mandatory checks minimal, but not non-existent, and > then we reevaluate when we have real data about how well this works. But I > would really like more feedback from the community. Maybe

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> On May 24, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Siwek, Jon wrote: > >> >> On May 23, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Slagell, Adam J wrote: >> >> I guess there is a balance here. If we do no mandatory checks and you could >> submit something that isn’t even a Bro plugin, the

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> On May 23, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Slagell, Adam J wrote: > > I guess there is a balance here. If we do no mandatory checks and you could > submit something that isn’t even a Bro plugin, the repository could become > cluttered with junk. Do we really want things that don’t

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> On May 24, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Siwek, Jon wrote: > > I think all those points make things easy on contributors, minimize direct > involvement of the Bro Team in sorting out problems related to particular > plugins, and provide a useful way for users to discover and

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal

> On May 23, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Robin Sommer wrote: > >> That would make life easier for authors, and that’s maybe even a >> higher priority than maximizing the quality/consistency of user >> experience because, without authors, there won’t be much for users to >> experience in