search

falcosecurity / evolution

Evolution process of The Falco Project
Apache License 2.0
48 stars 39 forks source link

Archive falcosecurity/template-repository #154

Closed FedeDP closed 2 years ago

FedeDP commented 2 years ago

Describe the bug

I don't see the value of having a template repository, whose only guarantee is adding a default license and an inaccurate OWNERS file. We normally create repositories, and before donating it to falcosecurity, make sure that the OWNERS and the LICENSE files are in place. The README should also be there with an explanation of the projects and a little overview.

Furthermore, most of the projects under this organization do not use it. It has never been used consistently, and it is not maintained anymore.

Proposal

Given the above, I propose to archive falcosecurity/template-repository repository.

leogr commented 2 years ago

+1 for me!

maxgio92 commented 2 years ago

Is the license the right one for potentially all projects of the organization?

maxgio92 commented 2 years ago

Besides the content, I think the three files is important they're always in place. So I propose to revive the template repo and instead revisit the content where necessary. My 2 cents :-)

leogr commented 2 years ago

Hey @maxgio92

Is the license the right one for potentially all projects of the organization?

The license should be Apache2, but others are allowed :point_down: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/allowed-third-party-license-policy.md#cncf-allowlist-license-policy

So I don't find it so useful for that purpose.

Moreover, has no sense to me to inherit the OWNERS file from the template (and unfortunately we can't remove it from there, otherwise the repo won't work). I still believe keeping it has more cons than pros.

cc @falcosecurity/falco-maintainers wdyt?

krisnova commented 2 years ago

+1 as long as we document the owners file expectations in our governance

leogr commented 2 years ago

+1 as long as we document the owners file expectations in our governance

That's a good point :+1:

jasondellaluce commented 2 years ago

+1 from me for archiving the repo.

The template repository has not been used consistently in the past, and I don't think that having default files for license and owners serves any purpose in the organization. Those are both repo-dependent things that should be evaluated case by case. At this point, I feel like having this repository just causes degrees of confusion when contributing new projects to the organization.

+1 as long as we document the owners file expectations in our governance

Totally agree!

leogr commented 2 years ago

Besides the content, I think the three files is important they're always in place. So I propose to revive the template repo and instead revisit the content where necessary. My 2 cents :-)

Hey @maxgio92

from the community call feedback and this issue comment, most folks agree on archiving the project. However, I understood you want to revive the repo. At this point, I'd propose to archive the project anyway and eventually unarchive it when we know how to use it and rework it. Meanwhile, users will not be confused by a template repository that has not been consistently used and is currently not up-to-date.

So, could we proceed with archiving it, or do you still have any concerns? Let us know!

maxgio92 commented 2 years ago

Hi @leogr, I like the approach and the mine wasn't a strong opinion. Please, go on with the archival :-)