[Infrastructure] Separate GitHub Repositories for Each Working Group

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Aug 31 09:31:52 MST 2020

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:16 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:

> During last week's Infrastructure call, Ben, Jos, and I discussed the
> proposal to split https://github.com/cabforum/documents/ into separate
> repositories for each WG's documents.

FWIW, I tried for 10 minutes to get into the call before giving up. Can we
get this worked out for the next call? Had the same problem with our prior
call as well.

> I don't believe that we need to create a ballot to proceed with this
> change, but I suggested that we should announce the change on the public
> list and give members a chance to object to it. Here is what I think we
> want to propose:
> ================
> The Infrastructure Subcommittee plans to change the structure of the
> Forum's GitHub organization to better reflect the evolving structure of the
> Forum itself.
> We'll create new repositories under the 'cabforum' organization as follows:
> - "forum" - contains the Bylaws (and potentially IPR agreement and other
> Forum level docs)
> - "servercert" - Charter, BRs, and EVGLs
> - "code-signing" - Code signing Charter, BRs, and EV code signing
> guidelines
> - "smime" - Charter and BRs for S/MIME certificates
> - "tools" - automation code and other Infrastructure WG files

"tools" is a bit TBD right now. That's specifically a large scale of work
(to work out the CI integration and templates and figuring out if we're
doing cross-repo syncs). So let's just place this as "TBD". I think just
focusing on the main work products sounds good.

As I wasn't able to make the call, I'm not sure what was discussed for
cabforum/documents - is that being renamed to that it will automatically
redirect? I think we should, and should to servercert rather than forum,
but that wasn't clear.

> Each repo will have access rights specific to the working group (e.g. SCWG
> members won't be able to approve changes to the SMCWG repo).

One area that hadn't been worked through is whether or not the Forum
Infrastructure group (or some subset) will be admins for these repositories
or not? That has implications here for the statement of permissions, but
also has implications when we thinking about how publishing will work (e.g.
shared secrets in the repo config)

> Each repo will be configured to enforce reviews before merging a pull
> request.

... into the "main" repository, right?

> This change will be accomplished by moving documents from the existing
> repo into the new ones in such a way that history is preserved (most likely
> by forking 'documents' and then deleting files that are not in the scope of
> the new repo).

This seems like it's gated on the completion of branch cleanup, right, so
that we don't bring in a ton of junk into new repos?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200831/e5b338e8/attachment.html>

More information about the Infrastructure mailing list