Replies: 3 comments
-
|
Thanks @A-Biggs we can discuss in detail today at the OVAL board meeting, but on first glance it looks good. For the Release Cycle, I think arbitrary at board's decision is what we likely need. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Release cycles arbitrarily at the discretion of the Board is what I believe makes the most sense. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Per today's OVAL board meeting, the board has approved @A-Biggs proposal. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I'd like to see the momentum of changes being made to OVAL continue, and am therefore proposing a new approach for accepting changes into the official OVAL schema going forward (just throwing something out there to start a conversation, so by no means it needs to be what I'm suggesting below).
Bug fixes to existing schemas:
New schema or modifying existing schemas:
Release cycles?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions