Re: Moving lava-docker out of the KernelCI GitHub organisation

[Antonio Terceiro <antonio.terceiro@linaro.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2477 bytes --]

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.

> 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 that
the current maintainers still have the necessary access to keep
maintaining it (because the move won't make new maintainers magically
appear).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]