> On May 24, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Slagell, Adam J <slag...@illinois.edu> 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 I am an outlier > here?
I think starting w/ either approach could end up evolving/devolving in to the other? If you had no checks in place, but then later instituted mandatory checks, you might be able to have the cban client not remove things a user has already checked out. So you can delist plugins if they fail the new checks, but users would still have the local version they can use (if somehow they’ve got it in a configuration that’s usable to them, but that doesn’t pass the new mandatory quality checks). I lean toward starting w/ the most streamlined and least complicated approach and seeing what quality control checks you need to layer on top of it because we might just expend a lot of effort planning for problems that don’t actual ever pop up in practice. But as a person that has to do development work on cban I might be biased toward doing what seems easier for me, so I’m fine not having a vote. - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
