On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 4:41 PM Fabian Arrotin <fabian.arrotin@xxxxxxxxxx> 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-developer/) > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
