Hi Andreas On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 13:40, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
> > In any case, you can enable salsa CI on your personal fork to track this. > > Hmmm, I think we should not propagate personal forks. I'm afraid that > some fork might feature interesting commits but will be lost somewhere. > So I'd prefer to have salsa CI activated on the main med-team > repository. > Sure. And this reminds me again of the proposal to talk to salsa admins to enable it by default - after some brainstorming for choosing a default salsa-ci.yml ofcourse. This will: a) Directly help mitigate these problems to track such issues b) Improve overall quality of packages c) Help _sometimes_ to rely on CI if the build is very time+resource consuming We are currently manually enabling CI on several repos, and if we do it several number of times, we might end up breaking salsa ourselves -- thoughts? > > I'm not sure what "couldn't push my changes because it is on a protected > > branch" means here. You should be able to push unless you aren't trying > to > > force-push. > > I observed from time to time that master branch is marked "protected" > and I have no explanation at all and this is extremely annoying since it > might scare away newcomers. Protecting the master branch is an ideal thing to do since this doesn't allow force pushing -- if it wasn't protected, it'd be easy for a new comer who's not very well versed with git to mistakenly mess things up. > My "cure" is to simply set those people who > are affected to "Maintainer" status (which seems to enable also pushing > to protected branches). This is some mystery which I've not known the answer to. I remember not being able to push stuff to science + nim team w/o "maintainer" access bump > May be we should simply run a script to unprotect > all master branches ... and find out why this might happen at all. > That can have repercussions (see the reply above) -- I'd recommend not doing that > > If you aren't force-pushing, then you need better access than developer > > probably for this one. I just granted you maintainer access for this > repo, > > try pushing once. > > I've set general maintainer access. I think if we want to enable people > to create new repositories all should get this status. I fail to see any > sense in different levels of membership. > Probably the rationale is that someone set as "maintainer" can change protected branch settings + CI vars et. al -- this can end up causing potential damage if accidentally a spammer gets such an access. But I suppose we assume good intent most of the times, and it should generally be safe. (It's quite OK in Shruti's case, definitely) Ofcourse, apologies if I said something wrong here :-) Nilesh
