Add DISCUSSION reference type #138
Conversation
|
This change is fully backward compatible, as it is adding a new type, not modifying, removing, or requiring an existing type. |
Signed-off-by: Josh Buker <crypto@joshbuker.com>
joshbuker
force-pushed
the
schema/discussion-reference-type
branch
from
89f26f1
to
0e32567
Compare
docs/schema.md
Outdated
| The `severity` field is an optional element [defined here](#severity-field). | ||
| This `severity` field applies to a specific package, in cases where affected | ||
| packages have differing severities for the same vulnerability. If any package | ||
| level `severity` fields are set, the top level [`severity`](#severity-field) | ||
| must not be set. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like my IDE autostripped trailing whitespace, can undo this if necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DISCUSSION seems like it's the superset that contains ARTICLE, i.e. a discussion about the vulnerability. Should we deprecate ARTICLE in favor of this and broaden the definition of DISCUSSION? Otherwise it seems like there is only nuance separating DISCUSSION and ARTICLE.
I had similar thoughts, honestly. deprecating ARTICLE and incorporating it into DISCUSSION seems sane to me. |
|
deprecation doesn't mean much for the OSV schema when it comes to backwards compatibility though. I'm happy to keep this distinction (which I think there's plenty), of ARTICLE referring to blog posts and DISCUSSION referring to social media threads if you're happy with that @chrisbloom7 ? |
Revisiting #89
Partially Fixes #78
Related to #137