From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2022 14:07:11 +0200 From: "Corentin Labbe" Subject: Re: Moving lava-docker out of the KernelCI GitHub organisation Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-ID: To: Alice Ferrazzi Cc: Remi Duraffort , Antonio Terceiro , Guillaume Tucker , Kevin Hilman , "kernelci-tsc@groups.io" , "kernelci@groups.io" Le Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:33:37PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi a =E9crit : > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:56 PM Remi Duraffort > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Le lun. 29 ao=FBt 2022 =E0 08:18, Alice Ferrazzi < > alice.ferrazzi@miraclelinux.com> a =E9crit : > >> > >> Hello Antonio, > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 3:40 AM Antonio Terceiro > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > >> > > Hello, > >> > > > >> > > The idea of adding BayLibre's lava-healthchecks-binary[1] > >> > > repository to the KernelCI GitHub organisation was brought up > >> > > during a KernelCI weekly meeting last month. This appears to be > >> > > related to the lava-docker[2] project which is currently in the > >> > > KernelCI organisation, to bring the two repositories together. > >> > > > >> > > It seems to me that lava-docker and anything related to providing > >> > > LAVA support is not something that KernelCI should be responsible > >> > > for as a project. In fact, the lava-docker repository has been > >> > > managed entirely autonomously since the beginning by different > >> > > maintainers than the core KernelCI repositories, and I believe it > >> > > was originally added to the KernelCI org by Kevin as it was an > >> > > easy thing to do that made sense at the time. > >> > > > >> > > Rather than having one more LAVA-related project under this org, > >> > > how about either creating a dedicated GitHub organisation for > >> > > lava-docker and related repositories, or adding lava-docker and > >> > > the healthchecks to the LAVA GitLab instance on > >> > > https://git.lavasoftware.org/? > >> > > > >> > > Having a dedicated org on GitHub would give the actual > >> > > maintainers of the project full control over it, to add and move > >> > > repositories, manage members, permissions etc. as they wish. > >> > > > >> > > However, if the LAVA maintainers think that lava-docker could > >> > > become the main solution for running LAVA in Docker, then maybe > >> > > it should be merged with some existing project on > >> > > git.lavasoftware.org or added as a new project there. That would > >> > > give it more visibility and potentially remove duplicated > >> > > efforts. > >> > > >> > FWIW, there is also > >> > https://git.lavasoftware.org/lava/pkg/docker-compose which seems > >> > similar, but not the same, as kernelci's lava-docker (e.g. there is = no > >> > autogeneration of config files AFAICT). That's used by a few people, > but > >> > mostly for development purposes I think. > >> > > >> > >> yes, from what I could see is a different approach. > >> We are offering a orchestration system that is generated > >> programmatically by a yaml file (boards.yaml) > >> that is creating the necessary docker-compose settings and unloading > >> the already set up lava > >> files and folders. > >> > >> > > I'm not sure I'm aware of all the implications for each of these > >> > > options so I thought I would bring it up for discussion here. > >> > > What do you think? > >> > > >> > I don't really have an opinion on what to do with lava-docker. In > >> > principle, consolidation and collaboration is good, but we would need > to > >> > agree on the details. Also, moving it around must be done in a way t= hat > >> > the current maintainers still have the necessary access to keep > >> > maintaining it (because the move won't make new maintainers magically > >> > appear). > >> > >> I agree on doing it in a way that the current maintainers have still > >> the necessary access rights for continue > >> the development, > >> I also would like to do it in a way that the current lava-docker users > >> don't get confused on > >> where the upstream repository moved to. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alice Hello Sorry I am late to came in conversation. I agree that lava-docker is probably not hosted in the right place now. The only relation between the 2 project was that lava-docker was designed t= o help doing a LAVA lab for people wanting to join kernelCI So I agree to move it out of kernelCI if it si necessary. lava-docker has few users, so it will be easy to warn them. (I know AGL, Gk= ernelCI, Baylibre, lab-broonie as real users, not sure if the other still u= se it). For the moment I am the only maintainer, but if Alice want to step in, it w= ill be good. I will wait for Khilman to said the final words.