> El 29 abr. 2020, a la(s) 11:19, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> escribió: > > On woensdag 29 april 2020 15:16:12 CEST Adriaan de Groot wrote: >>> On 2020 prilula d. 29id 06:46:55 CEST Bhushan Shah wrote: >>> We have gotten a request for namespacing from projects on multiple >>> occassion, in cgit our workaround has always been that we prefix the >>> repo name with namespace- (i.e wikitolearn-courses-backend). >>> >>> While this works out with our current workflow, it is not really >>> optimal. I've also mentioned various new contributor focused >>> requirements which lead us to this proposal for structuring in previous >>> emails. >> >> >> Your mention of namespaces reminds me that there was **also** a discussion >> in >> this thread about workboards and reviews. >> >> GitLab can have **one** workboard per group. So depending on how the >> categories / namespaces work out, we have choices in the overall number of >> workboards: >> >> - one big one (flat) >> - one per (sub)group / namespace >> >> We should look at this as well. Arguments I've seen in this thread >> >> - one big one is unmanageably large >> - (sub)communities have asked for smaller (split) workboards >> - split workboards make it harder to work over group boundaries >> - one big one allows moving reviews and tasks to where they belong > > Outch, that's a nasty one. I thought there was a workboard per repository... > And most of the proposed groups actually aren't really subcommunities in any > case, just bags of holding for vaguely similar projects.
My understanding is that there is a workboard per repository *and* another per group. Now, how big do we make the group workboard? All of KDE? A smaller category? That is the question. -- Nicolas