Re: Team naming policy on salsa.debian.org
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 14:17:24 +0100
- From: Arturo Borrero Gonzalez <arturo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Team naming policy on salsa.debian.org
On 26 December 2017 at 13:12, Jonathan McDowell <noodles@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:45:37AM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> For larger projects you can also create a group to host your projects.
>> To avoid clashes with usernames (that share the same namespace as
>> groups) we are requiring groups to have a '-team' suffix to their
>> name. Groups can be created using the same self-service portal
>> https://signup.salsa.debian.org. For larger, already-established
>> teams it is also possible to ask us to create the group with a name
>> not conforming to the normal team namespace. Examples are teams like
>> *debian-qa*. Please create an issue in the support project.
> Is there a policy here? I'm seeing a mix of formats rather than any
> consistency. For example for keyring-maint should we request
> debian-keyring as a group, or just use keyring-team? DSA and ftp-master
> have gone for the latter (dsa-team + ftp-team) but I'd assumed the
> former was more appropriate for an official Debian entity.
> Likewise for pkg-electronics I was expecting pkg-electronics-team (to
> match, e.g., pkg-suricata-team) but I see things like libvirt-team as
> well so the pkg- prefix doesn't seem to be consistently used/unused.
Following with your example (pkg-suricata-team) I prefer to make it
explicit for people outside debian that this is about packaging.
So I usually put the 'pkg' string also in individual repos, i.e.:
I had problems in the past with misleading repo names, and it cost
nothing to have the pkg string everywhere and be explicit.
Newcomers usually like this as well, things are not obvious for them.