From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:40:38 -0300 From: Antonio Terceiro Subject: Re: Moving lava-docker out of the KernelCI GitHub organisation Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Groupsio=XHx2aLFpJqTh3ySRrgkz" List-ID: To: Guillaume Tucker Cc: Remi Duraffort , Alice Ferrazzi , Corentin Labbe , Kevin Hilman , "kernelci-tsc@groups.io" , "kernelci@groups.io" --Groupsio=XHx2aLFpJqTh3ySRrgkz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > Hello, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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/? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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). --Groupsio=XHx2aLFpJqTh3ySRrgkz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEst7mYDbECCn80PEM/A2xu81GC94FAmMJE6QACgkQ/A2xu81G C964cg/9HuSatJOO5AcTuVwTV6S27UpNz/X3I08pdrQaYVwTCGJwUyYnoHB6846/ gQWtl5Xg251Bir4vkCTSQpgVLMEadCG78LAnf19rtP1bB/5wQiBlhcZCGwsRZvHc k8bkYY65B3Kdq6YtbXQUOOxXIiLDU5R96sgVvFdw3Zj7fYCzQhix6QR5dQ5fv8fK BmSBkWCyTZqJd3OSFnC5TDjS5qYTuzbQr2jXDf0Uyt766XiWXG7qnlrBHWCFJXRm hhJUc47s8akkljXJ30rylgKUIMdcg37Z2BSK0cjlci3oWzlLBaeGf3QiSH+ivqQL DNHXRMhV0LyCmHUz7OUve6yC1mbSue8CUwU7Fm7IwwStpLMTXPr7v8JSnJrO0OtG phCE/iuhcv46ZPpXEEWfagvRXhZ3Mjai1Z1pRpqg0J1TuYq13gP5l3uIkymeDkEd ZUKQwG9t26G94r6BGNTUSSWOb/azfa8y1FauGhXtiB6ozSGC0yJQg3Aq0lZc4aLd poTj2+bqEqt/it7hGpJ8W++0f3H8usIzO/Sd4Ns+2nufvFcoo20guO7YUF3V4Y7H SC2zX60FhxqaOzgpkiozDA8DGTrDXGlxxMJb77AGOS3kgBqAUJ0PDHLH0dOFQ4HF 2WVrCpk9m5gYxOrG42xr1S/xuLWwDG/fePz0cgA5DTHTRFoAj8g= =yjbZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Groupsio=XHx2aLFpJqTh3ySRrgkz--