[Infrastructure] Separate GitHub Repositories for Each Working Group

[Wayne Thayer]

We discussed this proposal on today's Infrastructure subcommittee call.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:46 AM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Ryan - this is helpful.
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:32 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> No one has been able to start the meeting. Jos is working with the WebEx
> team to get his account fixed.
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
I think this means that all of the automation for producing the documents
would initially be duplicated in each repo. We agreed that is a good
approach because it allows us to proceed with the separate repos sooner.
Then a subsequent task would be to consolidate the automation for all the
repos into the 'tools' repo so that the Infrastructure subcommittee can
more easily maintain it.


> 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.
>>
>>
>
> That makes sense.
>
>
We decided that it would be best to consider cabforum/documents a legacy
repo, set it to read-only, and possibly rename it to 'archive' rather than
repurposing it as either the forum level repo or the SCWG repo.

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)
>>
>>
>
> Suggest we discuss this on the next call.
>
> Each repo will be configured to enforce reviews before merging a pull
>>> request.
>>>
>>
>> ... into the "main" repository, right?
>>
>>
>
> Correct.
>
> 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?
>>
>
> That seems like a good idea. We should discuss the cleanup on the next
> call.
>
>
Ben is proceeding with some branch cleanup work, but in today's call we
decided that keeping the cabforum/documents repo intact as an archive would
allow us to create the new repos from scratch without copying over history
and branches. We can proceed with this approach to creating the new repos
without branch cleanup in the cabforum/documents repo.

- Wayne
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200909/72678d7f/attachment-0001.html>