Repository name and collection name

[ehelms]

With the merge of the collections layout and metadata support, I got to thinking if we should re-name this repository (and the collection) based on our intended scope for this project. Currently, the collection name is foreman which implies an all-encompassing scope for what will live in this collection under the Foreman namespace. That would imply to me that we could bring on board roles and playbooks associated to the management and installation of Foreman as well letting this repository move from being module focused to Foreman community focused. In which case I would suggest we move to name this repository to foreman-ansible-collection.

Alternatively, we keep this repository focused on modules for managing entities within Foreman and change the collection name to reflect this. Leaving open the possibility for collections within the namespace such as for installation and management (e.g. converting Forklift's set of roles / playbooks) to a collection.

[sean797]

Currently, the collection name is foreman

nitpick, we should probably change that to theforeman https://galaxy.ansible.com/theforeman

I agree with changing it to foreman-ansible-collection but I don't necessarily agree with copying the roles/playbooks from Forklift here for 2 main reasons:

• the roles in Forklift have lots of configurable options due to there focus on providing dev or test environments that are no applicable to users.
• the installers idempotency; until we can provide a user-friendly idempotent way of running foreman-installer I don't believe we should be providing any sort of "official" ansible role/play/module for interacting with the installer.

[quba42]

If you are going to rename it anyway, you could also use snake case. Much more readable.

[evgeni]

Who owns that account on Galaxy?

Looking at https://github.com/ansible-collections/, the repo name might also be ansible_collection_foreman?

Not strictly married to any variant of the name, tho.

As for the actual content, I'd prefer this to be the place for our entity-management-modules, not for installation roles.

[evgeni]

Just a quick update, I do have access to said account on galaxy now and I've updated the owner of the collection to be "theforeman".

Repository/Collection name is still open.

[evgeni]

Also, I think @ekohl raised this, we have an ansible inventory plugin somewhere and an ansible callback plugin somewhere else, should these be hosted here too? (not strictly a discussion for this issue, but maybe keeping in mind when deciding on a collection name).

[ekohl]

Who owns that account on Galaxy?

I suspect @theforeman/ansible might know.

[ares]

@xprazak2 already shared the account I believe.

Inventory plugin and callback plugin live in main ansible repo right? I don't think it should live anywhere else.

[ekohl]

We mentioned that it can be beneficial to have them live outside of core for an easier release cycle. However, now that we are marked as maintainers it should be easier. That's why we don't need to decide now but it makes sense to at least consider it in naming this collection.

[evgeni]

Yeah, I have access to the account, all good on that part.

[evgeni]

As I'd like to release the first version to galaxy, we should at least decide on the collection name. I think it should be either foreman or modules, resulting in theforeman.foreman or theforeman.modules as the full name. As for the repository name, I don't strictly care :)

cc @ehelms @akofink @sean797 @mdellweg @manisha15 @bagasse @fobhep

[mdellweg]

Does this mean, we end up with playbooks like this?

- name: Create Location
  theforeman.foreman.foreman_location:
    name: new location

[Fobhep]

I vote for modules, for the simple reason that you don't have to write foreman multiple times

[evgeni]

@mdellweg yes, unless you use the collections keyword as documented in https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/dev_guide/collections_tech_preview.html#using-collections

[ekohl]

How about resources? Then you end up with theforeman.resources.foreman_location. It also doesn't overload modules which have a special meaning.

Edit: alternative could be entities

[evgeni]

Not all modules are about resources. But I can see the point

[mdellweg]

besides, there is a filter, and maybe more tools are about to come. I would not go as far as calling it collection. In the end foreman might not be as bad. If someone were to keep a modified/experimental version in their namespace, it would still fit.

[quba42]

Naming things is hard.

[evgeni]

Given the folder name, we could also do plugins?

[ekohl]

I was thinking about base but that's also very overloaded. theforeman.essentials.* perhaps?

[Fobhep]

Given the folder name, we could also do plugins?

but plugins is also somewhat reserved in ansible context

[evgeni]

So, agree that naming is hard and keep the existing name?

[ekohl]

To be clear, what is the existing name? :)

[mdellweg]

Finally, i would go for foreman and advise to use the collections parameter in playbooks.

[evgeni]

@ekohl foreman

[ekohl]

In that case, yes: I would go for the existing name foreman.

[akofink]

I'm fine with theforeman.foreman.<module> as well. Is it possible or useful to have a collection for each plugin? Like theforeman.katello.<module> and theforeman.foreman_salt.<module>, basically matching the GitHub organization/repository.

[evgeni]

Possible, yes, but would require more work during release and I'm not sure of the benefits (size is small anyways, and we don't have many different dependencies either).

[ehelms]

I vote for foreman to make it clearer that this is for the Foreman application. It keeps the door open to potentially make future collections targeted at some different aspect of the ecosystem (e.g. theforeman.installer, theforeman.maintenance, theforeman.musicvideos)

[sean797]

:+1: to foreman

[evgeni]

With the collection bits now settled, the repo name remains.

Do we have any need to change the repo name? IMHO "Foreman Ansible Modules" is an established name by now and it explains pretty nicely what we ship here, so I'd be in favor of keeping the name for the sake of no change.

[quba42]

My only issue with the name is - instead of _, but it is clearly not worth opening that can of worms.

[mdellweg]

I have been accustomed to that name, too. And i believe, renaming the repository creates a lot broken links and bookmarks and is not worth the pain.

[evgeni]

technically GH creates redirects for the old name, so it still should work, but I'd prefer not to rely on that :)

[evgeni]

please vote :+1: on this comment if you're in favor of closing this issue as "we did all we could" :)

[quba42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche