-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Admin access to https://github.com/nodejs-github-bot/official-images for nodesj/docker team #562
Comments
Alternate would be to create a fork in the nodes org and grant permissions there. We'd then just need to adjust the auto-pr job to use that |
Why can't the repository live in the org instead? |
@mmarchini it could, that was my follow on comment 😄 , but maybe it did show up before you responded |
ah, guess I got confused with "create a fork". I meant transfer the whole repo and have the main repo in the org. |
No worries, maybe this is a better statement: Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
I do kind of like the second option, but it doesn't look like there is much president for forks in the org https://github.com/nodejs?q=&type=fork&language= |
I'm more inclined to option 3. I always thought it was weird that we had that repository on the bot account. I don't understand why Admin access is needed though. |
Also, since Option 2 deletes the original repo and keeps only the fork, there's essentially no difference between options two and three. |
+1 on option 3 |
Option 2 allows up to update and test with the new repo before the old one is removed. Option 3 assumes that we can co-ordinate timing and that there are no snags in updating all the CI workflows as a "big bang".
Sorry, missed the comment. I guess full Admin might not be needed, maintainer might be enough to be able to prune and possibly force-push to fix PR branches if there are issues with the automation. Goes back to the original purpose of the issue, before it veered off into moving the repo |
Option 2 deletes all issues and PRs, unrecoverably. |
There are no issues because it's a fork of an upstream repo already. There are a few old testing PRs https://github.com/nodejs-github-bot/official-images/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed but I think it could be Archived rather than deleted at the end if you think there is anything to keep |
There seems to be agreement that this should happen, although I guess it's not unanimous about whether it should be option 3 or option 2. But I guess there's consensus? What's the next step? Somebody with the bot login credentials needs to initiate the transfer? |
Since the auto-PR is blocked on #574, this might be a good time to do this with Option 3 since it's not functioning anyway |
@nschonni I can do it. No need to coordinate with anyone then? |
yup, go ahead, we need to keep doing manual PRs for now anyway |
Repository transfered to https://github.com/nodejs/official-images, @nodejs/docker has been added with "Maintain" role. |
@nschonni you might need to update the repo name on nodejs/docker-node actions, although GitHub might do the redirect properly as well. |
🎆 thanks @mmarchini! |
Thanks @mmarchini! 🎉 |
This repo/fork is used to create pull requests to the docker/offical-images repo. Requesting access for the team so we can prune stale branches and fix the auto-pr branch if something goes wrong in the auto-pr process.
Not really sure how this should get documented
/cc @nodejs/docker
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: