On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:22 -0500, you wrote:
> When a contributor submits a new script, there would be some mandatory > checks that would need to pass for the script to be included: The "mandatory" is where I disagree. I believe there's just to much involved with any initial vetting, even if conceptually simply, that it will create a bottleneck. Take your first question as an example: "Is the plugin structure valid?" We wouldn't get very far with a simple yes/no answer. We'd have to explain what exactly is not valid, with some of that being just convention, or maybe something that matters in general for plugins but for some reason not the particular one. Or what if the plugin works with some version of Bro, but not another. Are we going say it needs to work with the current release? What if a new release comes out and breaks all existing plugins? What if then an update for a plugin comes in that doesn't move to the new version yet? > At this point, though, I think we could run some "quality tests" and > give the plugin a quality score. This might be things like: Yep, I'm fully on board with this part, that's good information we can provide to users about the state of something. And that state could be "totally broken". :-) Robin -- Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * ro...@icir.org * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
