Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #9724 > unrolled thread

Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org> - 2018-01-04 16:10 +0100
    Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Bas Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> - 2018-01-04 16:20 +0100
      Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org> - 2018-01-04 17:20 +0100
        Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Philipp Huebner <debalance@debian.org> - 2018-01-05 11:40 +0100
          Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> - 2018-01-05 11:40 +0100
            Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org> - 2018-01-05 15:30 +0100
      Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Milan Kupcevic <milan@debian.org> - 2018-01-05 06:20 +0100
    Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-01-04 17:30 +0100
      Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org> - 2018-01-04 18:00 +0100
        Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-01-04 18:00 +0100
    Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2018-01-05 18:20 +0100
      Re: Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org> - 2018-01-08 12:50 +0100

#9724 — Naming of teams on salsa.debian.org

!! Please keep me on CC, I am not subscribed to this list.

(Content effectively duplicated at https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/support/issues/30)

Alexander Wirt:
> Hi, 
> 
> Since summer we have worked on our git.debian.org replacement based
> on GitLab. I am really happy to say that we are launching the beta of our service
> today. [..]
> 
> Teams
> -----
> 
> 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[1] project. 
> 

The current team names are a bit of a mess [1], and forcing everyone to use a suffix "-team" isn't helping because everyone is picking inconsistent prefixes instead.

Glancing through the current list of public groups, I suggest the following prefixes:

It's better to standardise on a set of prefixes and ditch the suffix completely. Prefixes will look better and be easier to navigate, when lists of group names are sorted.

debian-* - for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff
pkg-* - for group maintenance of related packages
l10n-* - for localisation efforts

If nobody disagrees, I'll be happy to implement the following:

<formorer> and as said, I would accept patches for the signup service that implements a drop down box that allow selection of predefined namespaces.

and then hopefully the salsa admins will perform the mass-renaming as I suggested on the ticket.

Further comments / suggestions welcome.

Ximin

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/explore/groups

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9725

On 2018-01-04 15:33, Ximin Luo wrote:
> debian-* - for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff
> pkg-* - for group maintenance of related packages
> l10n-* - for localisation efforts
> 
> If nobody disagrees, I'll be happy to implement the following:

Teams should be able to keep the same names as used on Alioth as much as 
possible, many of them use the 'debian-' prefix but aren't related to 
infrastructure or admin stuff.

For the Debian GIS team I've created the debian-gis-team on Salsa, which 
was pkg-grass on Alioth. The project name on Alioth no longer reflects 
the scope of the team, it has grown to maintain most GIS & OSM packages, 
not only GRASS. The team name on Salsa now (mostly) matches the 
discussion list debian-gis@l.d.o.

The 'debian-' prefix should not be reserved for Debian infrastructure 
and admin stuff in my opinion.

Kind Regards,

Bas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9726

Bas Couwenberg:
> On 2018-01-04 15:33, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> debian-* - for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff
>> pkg-* - for group maintenance of related packages
>> l10n-* - for localisation efforts
>>
>> If nobody disagrees, I'll be happy to implement the following:
> 
> Teams should be able to keep the same names as used on Alioth as much as possible, many of them use the 'debian-' prefix but aren't related to infrastructure or admin stuff.
> 
> For the Debian GIS team I've created the debian-gis-team on Salsa, which was pkg-grass on Alioth. The project name on Alioth no longer reflects the scope of the team, it has grown to maintain most GIS & OSM packages, not only GRASS. The team name on Salsa now (mostly) matches the discussion list debian-gis@l.d.o.
> 
> The 'debian-' prefix should not be reserved for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff in my opinion.
> 

I think it's preferable not to look at this from the point-of-view of individual teams, but from the perspective of the project as a whole. When non-Debian people navigate salsa.d.o it would be nicer to have a more systematic set of prefixes across all groups.

I did intend for "debian-" to be a "misc catch-all prefix", but for the case of GIS it is already covered by another prefix (pkg-) so should use that instead. I don't think re-using the name on Alioth makes anything *practically easier*, does it? URLs would still have to change.

Finally, we should be looking upon this as a chance to fix some of Alioth's naming inconsistencies, rather than to perpetuate them or to make them worse.

Julien Puydt @jpuydt-guest commented:
> Since everything is about debian anyway, perhaps the debian-* proposition should be admin-* or something else?

I'd also be happy with that, but various other teams I had in mind (e.g. "popcon") aren't exactly "admin-". Having too many prefixes wouldn't be a great thing either, so that's why I suggested "debian-".

<formorer>
> infinity0: please don't expect us to do such a mass renaming.

As above, I think the value of this exercise is to make the names consistent across the whole project. If you mean you don't want to do it out of effort, I'd be happy to do it - there's only about 100 teams so far, and I already supplied suggestions for about 12 of them.

<formorer>
> and for obvious reason we won't allow anybody to register groups with the debian- prefix 

Is this assuming that "debian-" would mean "admin / infra teams"? Does your position change if we were to adopt Bas' suggestion of making "debian-" a "anything goes" prefix?

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9731

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi

Am 04.01.2018 um 16:57 schrieb Ximin Luo:
> I think it's preferable not to look at this from the point-of-view of
> individual teams, but from the perspective of the project as a whole.
> When non-Debian people navigate salsa.d.o it would be nicer to have a
> more systematic set of prefixes across all groups.

While I like well organized structures, doing this on salsa alone is not
doing much IMHO, you would need to enforce the same policy for team
names in all places debian, which is a much bigger task/issue.


> <formorer>
>> infinity0: please don't expect us to do such a mass renaming.
> 
> As above, I think the value of this exercise is to make the names
> consistent across the whole project. If you mean you don't want to do
> it out of effort, I'd be happy to do it - there's only about 100
> teams so far, and I already supplied suggestions for about 12 of
> them.

I hope no team name will be changed without the team(-owner)'s consent,
as that might drive people away from salsa altogether, which is not what
you want (I assume).


For example, I have spent much time in the past week creating
https://salsa.debian.org/ejabberd-packaging-team/
https://tracker.debian.org/teams/ejabberd-packaging-team/
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=ejabberd@packages.debian.org

If somebody was to break that now without my consent, I'd be "royally
pissed" and extremely tempted to move it to github or similar instead.


Side note:
Personally I find the "pkg-" prefix to be extremely ugly and am very
happy with the "-team" suffix. Thanks a lot to formorer and the salsa
team for their good work!


Best wishes,
-- 
 .''`.   Philipp Huebner <debalance@debian.org>
: :'  :  pgp fp: 6719 25C5 B8CD E74A 5225  3DF9 E5CA 8C49 25E4 205F
`. `'`
  `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9732

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 05 Jan 2018, Philipp Huebner wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Am 04.01.2018 um 16:57 schrieb Ximin Luo:
> > I think it's preferable not to look at this from the point-of-view of
> > individual teams, but from the perspective of the project as a whole.
> > When non-Debian people navigate salsa.d.o it would be nicer to have a
> > more systematic set of prefixes across all groups.
> 
> While I like well organized structures, doing this on salsa alone is not
> doing much IMHO, you would need to enforce the same policy for team
> names in all places debian, which is a much bigger task/issue.
> 
> 
> > <formorer>
> >> infinity0: please don't expect us to do such a mass renaming.
> > 
> > As above, I think the value of this exercise is to make the names
> > consistent across the whole project. If you mean you don't want to do
> > it out of effort, I'd be happy to do it - there's only about 100
> > teams so far, and I already supplied suggestions for about 12 of
> > them.
> 
> I hope no team name will be changed without the team(-owner)'s consent,
> as that might drive people away from salsa altogether, which is not what
> you want (I assume).
Of course not. 
Every team will have to create an issue. (If we decide on such structure, I
do really expect more than just a few mails). 

Alex

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9733

Alexander Wirt:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2018, Philipp Huebner wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 04.01.2018 um 16:57 schrieb Ximin Luo:
>>> I think it's preferable not to look at this from the point-of-view of
>>> individual teams, but from the perspective of the project as a whole.
>>> When non-Debian people navigate salsa.d.o it would be nicer to have a
>>> more systematic set of prefixes across all groups.
>>
>> While I like well organized structures, doing this on salsa alone is not
>> doing much IMHO, you would need to enforce the same policy for team
>> names in all places debian, which is a much bigger task/issue.
>>

Doing it on salsa is a very good starting point, and it is / will be probably the biggest source of "names" - many names on other systems stem from it (or at least did for team names on alioth). The other place I know of is the list of "official" mailing lists: https://lists.debian.org/completeindex.html where nearly everything is prefixed with debian-.

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of just how ugly the current set of names are, here is the list I originally pasted into salsa/support#30:

| Old | New (suggested) |
| --- | --- |
| rust-team | pkg-rust |
| js-team | pkg-js |
| ocaml-team | pkg-ocaml |
| pkg-go-team | pkg-go |
| debian-remote-team | pkg-remote |
| cmake | pkg-cmake |
| debian-l10n-pt-team | l10n-pt |
| chinese-team | l10n-chinese |
| russian-l10n-team | l10n-russian |
| qa | debian-qa |
| debian-irc-team | debian-irc |
| debian-keyring | debian-keyring |
| mirror-team | debian-mirror |
| popularity-contest-team | debian-popcon |

For people belonging to 5+ teams it is really a pain to have to remember whether it's pkg-go-team or go-team or pkg-go or go-packaging-team whatever, especially when you have 2-3 core teams and 7-8 other teams you're only in "for necessity" and only work in rarely.

It is also a bit crappy to have to introduce new contributors to such a hard-to-remember set of names.

>>
>>> <formorer>
>>>> infinity0: please don't expect us to do such a mass renaming.
>>>
>>> As above, I think the value of this exercise is to make the names
>>> consistent across the whole project. If you mean you don't want to do
>>> it out of effort, I'd be happy to do it - there's only about 100
>>> teams so far, and I already supplied suggestions for about 12 of
>>> them.
>>
>> I hope no team name will be changed without the team(-owner)'s consent,
>> as that might drive people away from salsa altogether, which is not what
>> you want (I assume).
> Of course not. 
> Every team will have to create an issue. (If we decide on such structure, I
> do really expect more than just a few mails). 
> 

I was also not suggesting to rename the groups instantaneously and leave the owners to clear up the mess. But if a standard is decided then everyone should be expected to follow it, with some guidance / concrete help on cleaning up any references to the old names.

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9730

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 01/04/2018 10:09 AM, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> On 2018-01-04 15:33, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> debian-* - for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff
>> pkg-* - for group maintenance of related packages
>> l10n-* - for localisation efforts
>>

[...]

> 
> The 'debian-' prefix should not be reserved for Debian infrastructure
> and admin stuff in my opinion.
> 

+1

'operations-' or 'ops-' would likely fit the bill


Milan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9727

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 02:33:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
> It's better to standardise on a set of prefixes and ditch the suffix completely. Prefixes will look better and be easier to navigate, when lists of group names are sorted.
> 
> debian-* - for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff
> pkg-* - for group maintenance of related packages
> l10n-* - for localisation efforts
 
does your proposal also cover not using any prefix? eg I can see how the
Debian reproducible builds team fits into the above naming scheme, but
not how a reproducible-builds.org team would fit.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9728

Holger Levsen:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 02:33:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> It's better to standardise on a set of prefixes and ditch the suffix completely. Prefixes will look better and be easier to navigate, when lists of group names are sorted.
>>
>> debian-* - for Debian infrastructure and admin stuff
>> pkg-* - for group maintenance of related packages
>> l10n-* - for localisation efforts
>  
> does your proposal also cover not using any prefix? eg I can see how the
> Debian reproducible builds team fits into the above naming scheme, but
> not how a reproducible-builds.org team would fit.
> 

My proposal wasn't intended to block group names that don't fit into the above categories, so "reproducible", "reproducible-builds" etc would still be available on request by filing a support ticket, as is the case now.

The proposal is more along the lines of "if your group fits into this category then it *should/must* have this prefix".

(For those not aware, the "reproducible" group on alioth also hosts some non-Debian stuff.)

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9729

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:33:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
> The proposal is more along the lines of "if your group fits into this category then it *should/must* have this prefix".

thanks for clarifying!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9734

On 14907 March 1977, Ximin Luo wrote:

> The current team names are a bit of a mess [1], and forcing everyone
> to use a suffix "-team" isn't helping because everyone is picking
> inconsistent prefixes instead.

> Glancing through the current list of public groups, I suggest the
> following prefixes:

Having read this and pondered for a while, i must say I really dislike
it - and do prefer the -team thing more. (And do have ftp-team set :) )

Yeah, the prefixes people chose arent standardised, but I, for one, do
HATE pkg-*, it does look ugly. l10n-* isnt muc better, and the debian
group being there already.

And no, I do not have a perfect and nice suggestion on how to do it
best. Though maybe just presenting a list of possibilities at the signup
page (or on the wiki), to give people a common set of ideas on how they
could go on to name them?!

-- 
bye, Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9741

Joerg Jaspert:
> On 14907 March 1977, Ximin Luo wrote:
> 
>> The current team names are a bit of a mess [1], and forcing everyone
>> to use a suffix "-team" isn't helping because everyone is picking
>> inconsistent prefixes instead.
> 
>> Glancing through the current list of public groups, I suggest the
>> following prefixes:
> 
> Having read this and pondered for a while, i must say I really dislike
> it - and do prefer the -team thing more. (And do have ftp-team set :) )
> 
> Yeah, the prefixes people chose arent standardised, but I, for one, do
> HATE pkg-*, it does look ugly. l10n-* isnt muc better, and the debian
> group being there already.
> 
> And no, I do not have a perfect and nice suggestion on how to do it
> best. Though maybe just presenting a list of possibilities at the signup
> page (or on the wiki), to give people a common set of ideas on how they
> could go on to name them?!
> 

I suggest the view that having something which half of people thinks is ugly but is consistent, is better than having something inconsistent half of which is pretty and half of which is ugly.

The problems with -team are:

- it doesn't mean anything, it's just a placeholder to avoid clashes with usernames

For example, what if FTP became popular again and we wanted to package FTP-related software, what would that team be called?

Or, what if Debian FTP decides to switch to a newer protocol, then you have the same issue of whether (xxp-team) should mean "the Debian XXP admins" or "Packaging of XXP-related software".

- it's a suffix, it doesn't sort naturally. With topic-based prefixes, sorting a list immediately puts packages with a common-prefix next to each other. Effectively, it acts as a fake "/".

I didn't think up the pkg- prefix originally, but I don't have any issues with it. I can understand why some people think it's ugly but I quite like it, it's short and succinct and it's hard to misunderstand it for anything else. The point of these names is more to communicate, and it does that well.

We'll never come up with a perfect naming system that satisfies everyone, so in the interests of consistency we should pick *something*. Rather than nothing - which also doesn't satisfy anyone, and is also inconsistent.

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web