considering moving back to gitlab.com/centos

[cgwalters]

We're having a discussion about potentially moving back to somewhere underneath https://gitlab.com/CentOS/ - can folks who have an opinion on this provide them here?

At a minimum a 👍 or 👎 reaction to this issue.

[rhatdan]

I am fine with moving under CentOS/bootc or something like that. As long as we move Fedora stuff out.

[cgwalters]

Well, as one of the people who currently maintains this stuff I have a pretty strong interest in trying to keep what is in fedora and c9s (and future c10s) in sync.

At the same time we are also going to want to support "branching" at some point.

[lmilbaum]

I would prefer we move to a new gitlab.com namespace which can be declared an open source project under the gitlab.com terms. That will unlock the gitlab Ultimate features which I would like the bifrost team to work with. That is not possible if the bifrost projects will be tracked under the gitlab.com/centos namespace.

[rhatdan]

The goal is to get Fedora to Maintain their image. It would be good if we could define the content in a Containerfile, though. :^)

[cgwalters]

Note that where the git repository is hosted is a related, but still distinct problem domain from where the builds originate and are versioned/maintained. For example, the canonical kernel configs for ELN are in https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/ - what's in dist-git is just synchronized from that AIUI.

There's no rule that a Fedora build can't source content from e.g. a branch on https://gitlab.com/CentOS/

[lmilbaum]

There is a plan to track testing code in a separate repo. The question that was asked is where to create the repo: github.com/CentOS, github.com/osbuild,gitlab.com/centos/bootc or maybe a new gitlab.com namespace like: gitlab.com/bootc?