How the FAS and Gitlab groups are synced? Do we need to have them named
same?
Michal
On 04. 08. 23 14:04, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 04/08/2023 08:49, Ryan Lerch wrote:
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
Multiple solutions : one can always create new groups and reflect that
at gitlab level (same membership but different group name[s]) and IPA
supports multiple "nesting" levels so you can (in your Governance
example) have one groups containining/nesting multiple other ones
_______________________________________________
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
