On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 4:41 PM Fabian Arrotin <fabian.arrotin(a)arrfab.net> wrote:
On 04/08/2023 02:25, Ryan Lerch wrote:
> I just would get a discussion started with the process of
> semi-formalizing the grouping and naming guidelines for the Fedora
> GitLab instance.
>
> Currently there are a bunch of groups with subgroups in the main
> /fedora/ namespace:
>
>
https://gitlab.com/fedora
>
> Depending on how we decide to group, some of these may remain there
> (or possibly be grouped together in another group) This is however
> some repos and groups that i'm not sure what they are or could
> probably be moved into some existing groups:
>
> * Source Git group (
https://gitlab.com/fedora/src) -- not what you
> think it only has 4 repos so far
> * Fedora Podcast (
https://gitlab.com/fedora/podcast) could possibly go
> under marketing maybe
> * Packager-Tools (
https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools)
> * people (
https://gitlab.com/fedora/people) a private group with one repo in it
>
> This might have to be something that we have a meeting to discuss and
> figure out a scheme?
>
> cheers,
> ryanlerch
Hi Ryan,
We more or less discussed that with Kevin in the past and for CentOS
groups (all coming from same common IPA infra) I proposed that we used
something like :
<target>-<project>-<group_name>
Let me explain : Assuming that we need to grant the CentOS Automotive
SIG access to gitlab, the name in FAS/IPA is :
gitlab-centos-sig-automotive-developer
(
https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/gitlab-centos-sig-automotive-dev...)
Same rule but for openshift/ocp : we need to grant the hyperscale sig
access to the openshift CI centos infra :
https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/ocp-cico-hyperscale/
It's then easier to identify which group has access to what
(gitlab/openshift/etc) *while* keeping the existing groups, as IPA
supports nested groups (so the ocp-cico-hyperscale group in fact
contains the sig-hyperscale group
(
https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/sig-hyperscale/)
At least that's the naming convention we agreed on so that we can also
easily identify if that's a fedora/centos group (all the sig-* groups
weren't following that naming convention as they were coming from
previous FAS and so imported/merged with the fedora groups in IPA, but
there was no conflicting group back then)
Oh, i can also definitely get on board with a set scheme for Fedora
Accounts groups <-> Gitlab Groups naming conventions.
However, the one of the main issues i am noticing with our current
GitLab setup is that the groups that are being added are being done in
an adhoc setting.
For example, there are groups for Council and Mindshare (and not yet,
but i can imagine a FesCO group too) -- should these be grouped
together under, say a "Governance" Sub group?
cheers,
ryanlerch
--
Fabian Arrotin
gpg key: 17F3B7A1
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedora...
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue