Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2019-03-19 10:45:42 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...]
4) Create several namespaces to match the OpenStack map[1] buckets:
- openstack/ to hold first-level components in the central box - openstack-operations/ to hold operational tooling from the rights box - openstack-lifecyclemanagement/ to hold deployment recipes - openstack-user/ for SDK and CLI - openstack-adjacentenablers/ for adjacent tech bridges
Plus: - openstack-libs/ to hold libraries and second-order dependencies - openstack-dev/ for all repositories that we end up creating in order to get things done but have otherwise no relationship with the end product
[1] https://openstack.org/openstack-map [...]
While this will work fine for replicating from Gerrit to the opendev.org Gitea, it does necessarily imply centralized control over and maintenance of credentials for replicating to outside services like GitHub or Bitbucket. Under the org-per-team model those org credential secrets can be safely carried in and managed by the individual teams' core reviewers. With cross-team orgs, you need an identified body to care for the repository containing the replication job secrets and curating the various categories. *If* there is a group of volunteers to take on that work, then it seems like a reasonable plan to me.
Actually, I'd argue that we *need to* follow a common policy to define how "OpenStack" appears on GitHub/Bitbucket. I think having per-project-team replication policies could result in a very weird landscape. So I see having a single identified body to care for all those organizations as a feature rather than a bug :) I'm happy to volunteer to do that, as a TC member or as a OSF staff member, depending how much the rest of the TC wants to have a say in social code marketing properties like GitHub. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)