[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