[gnessus-discuss] Project Source Control Requirements
marlowe
marlowe at antagonism.org
Wed Nov 2 14:59:52 CET 2005
William Anderson wrote:
> All,
>
> as a key part of starting up and progressing OpenVAS, we require a
> robust and reliable platform to manage the source code. This is
> something that should be organised with utmost priority so as not to
> slow development effort; other infrastructure elements such as lists,
> web sites, etc. are secondary to securing a safe home for the project's
> central asset.
>
> We also need to make a final decision on our preferred method of
> revision control - the primary candidates are Concurrent Versions System
> (CVS) and Subversion (SVN). Our options are at present are:
>
> - Remain As-is
> Continue using CVS hosted at Nth Dimension
>
> Pros: no extra work required; debian developer already using tree
> Cons: not all team members wish to work with CVS; continued cost
> to Nth Dimension
>
> - Retain Host, Move to SVN
> Continue hosting source control at Nth Dimension, but change from
> CVS to SVN
>
> Pros: increased functionality over CVS, preferred method of
> working for some team members
> Cons: Engineering effort required to install and configure SVN
> and to migrate the existing CVS tree to SVN; possible
> conflict with Debian developer using CVS tree; continued
> cost to Nth Dimension
>
> - Move to SF (CVS)
> Move source control hosting to SourceForge, continue using CVS
>
> Pros: reliable hosting, no cost
> Cons: SF branding; delay to public RO access to tree
>
> - Move to SF (SVN)
> Move source control hosting to SourceForge, change to SVN
>
> Pros: reliable hosting, no cost
> Cons: SF branding; service not ready yet (still in beta); access
> to service not yet confirmed (in progress); similar effort
> required to transition
>
> - Third Party Offer (CVS/SVN)
> Take up third party offer of hosting on a shared or dedicated
> platform
>
> Pros: probable reliability of hosting, no or little cost;
> permits a non-development vector for third parties to
> contribute to the project
> Cons: possible loss of OpenVAS branding; unknown quantity (SF
> is proven under load); SVN requires transition; possible
> delay in getting access to hosting to install / configure
> and import data; possible restrictions on access and
> capability; always a possibility of suspension, withdrawal
> or complete removal of access due to circumstances beyond
> the control of the project team and/or the third party
>
>
> Please discuss these options or contribute further options or proposals
> on the discussion list at gnessus-discuss at gnessus.org
>
As a member of the administration team, I would be interested in hearing
what the developers would prefer. I believe that is my job to provide
the developers with the environment best suited for their needs. I
would welcome input from members of the development team.
Patrick
More information about the Openvas-discuss
mailing list