> If your team structure is Employees > Engineering > Application Engineering > Identity, granting Engineering write access to a repository means Application Engineering and Identity also get that access.
Finally.
> Membership inheritance from parent to child teams isn't automatic. If you're a member of Engineering and someone creates a child team called Security, team members of Engineering aren't automatically direct team members of Security.
Ok that was worded weirdly, but it makes sense. I think the wording of "parent" and "child" teams is confusing, "super" and "sub" teams is much clearer, and it makes perfect sense that when you create a subteam it starts empty, the opposite would be completely broken since the entire point of subteams would be to increase access rights.
One thing they did not touch upon though: can you be a member of a team and one of its subteams? (that would be somewhat annoying).
"organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations" -https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Conway%27s_law
1. Bulk team adding/editing. From https://github.com/orgs/[org]/people, add the ability to select multiple people and add them on a team. I do this via a script, but I don't like doing it that way. Also, a better way of finding who is NOT in a specific team, i.e. filter by users who are not in the "staff" team.
2. A special team which has everyone in it by default
3. A way of contacting everyone in a team without resorting to adding everyone to a specific team, giving that team write access, creating an issue and/or @mentioning everyone.
Why do we have to be grateful like serfs for any favors the masters bequeath to us?
Git is decentralized. Why do you need github?
Everything can be summed up with the word "social". Permissions, connections between people, notifications, contacts, etc etc.
Social is not decentralized today. Even though money already is, publishing is, version control is.
That's the reason we accept such posts as "wow thanks".
Imagine if something like Wordpress existed which let you run your own social network and easily put together the exact permission rules you need for your organization. Let you do everything in that post, but open source and free w plugins?
I thought back in 2011 there should be something like this. So I'm building it:
https://qbix.com/platform
Don't beg, just install it and configure your own social network to do what your organization needs.
Frankly, the hostility in your post just puts me off trying your platform. Learn from http://harmful.cat-v.org - try adding some humor.
Decentralized or not, someone has to actually build the features, and that's still a reason to thank them. A framework is cool and all, but doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes the job easier.
You miss the point of my comment. When facebook says "now you can manage the privacy defaults of your posts" many people feel relief and gratitude that they did that. Many of us don't even realize how ridiculous that is. It's like serfs thanking their feudal lords for doing something in a one-size-fits-all way they could have easily done themselves if the platform had been decentralized.
The same thing with the App Stores and other things. So thankful that our latest version wasn't rejected for competing with Twitter or Apple or whatever. Yes, they built it. But that's phase 1. It's way better when it's an open source platform and no one gatekeeper to deal with.
Are you grateful you can wear a blue shirt? Or that now finally they'll play your song on a radio?
It's not about hostility towards github or anyone in particular. It's just pointing out (using the vernacular many geeks use to exaggerate a point) the ridiculousness of "we finally let you have sub groups" and "ok but please please add this feature".
Bitcoin will decentralize money and you won't be grateful that a bank lets you pay someone without a problem.
The web decentralized publishing and you aren't begging someone to please publish your story with a video so your friends can read it. It's just a market.
Same here. Centralization in social holding back progress by a lot, and preventing people from getting things done in the real world, and leads to business models to suck people into spending more time posting cat videos and commenting on politics and exacerbates their echo chambers until they hate each other, because they think they only have two choices for President etc etc. And what's the next big thing? VR. Suck them into even more virtual reality and monetize their time. Well, I could be a little mad -- not at the players but the rules of the game. Decentralize. Change the rules.
Don't like my platform? Use another! But host your own social network!
You want more geek-vitriol? Here it is from a famous source:
You're actually preaching to the choir, I don't disagree at all with your point, I just don't think it applies here.
Look, at my job we self-host Gitlab CE. It's 100% Free Software and we could implement all the features we want without asking them a damn thing. Yet I still have asked them to "please add this feature".
It has nothing to do with being Free Software or not, but with asking them to do actual work in implementing the feature.
Yep, and that's great! In your situation you also have the following choices:
1) Add it yourself
2) Pay someome who is an expert with Gitlab CE code, maybe even certified as expert but doesn't work for GitLab CE.
3) Buy a plugin made by someone on a marketplace, which has reviews, maybe passed a security audit, etc.
In short, I am not saying no one has to charge anything. I'm saying that in an open ecosystem there would be plenty of options. You don't thank wordpress they finally let you add analytics or privacy to your wordpress blog, like you would with blogger.com back in the day. You may still have to pay for the plugin BUT you don't have to wait for an overworked Automattic to build it. You have an entire ecosystem.
And to take it one step further, with open standards you can then have multiple platforms out there to choose from, which can all work with each other.
I'd like to have nested projects as well. For instance I want one top-level having my talks, and then sub projects for each talk. Now I either have to clutter my repos with many small projects, or have one big repo with many folders. Which I don't like, as issues, comments, stars etc. should be directed directly to the talk, not a big project.
Other top level projects would be one for various PoCs, learning different languages, programming competitions, maybe one for stuff I did at university etc.
Same for organizations, where I work we now have hundreds of repos in a flat structure. Impossible to manage.
I wish the team permissions system was better. I'd love to be able to give developers write access to the code, but issue writers only access to the issues system.
Now, if only you could have a hierarchy of organizations. If you have a large company, it'd be helpful to have github.com/companyname/someinitiative/{project,project2,anotherproject} , rather than a single organization containing hundreds of projects.
Would be nice, but the URL scheme would have to be different. A lot of tooling builds on top of GitHub's user/org and repo identifiers making up the entire URL.
A different separator would be fine. org:team/project , for instance? Even using the same org/project URLs would work fine, if some means existed to organize them by team.
"Could this be a tree, or graph?" is a great question to ask yourself when choosing how to model your schema. Even if you don't plan to expose that to users initially.
I'm excited to try this out but I wonder how much complexity it will add to managing specific individuals. If you assigned a team, then needed to remove one person will it require you to remove the entire team then add individuals again?
Finally.
> Membership inheritance from parent to child teams isn't automatic. If you're a member of Engineering and someone creates a child team called Security, team members of Engineering aren't automatically direct team members of Security.
Ok that was worded weirdly, but it makes sense. I think the wording of "parent" and "child" teams is confusing, "super" and "sub" teams is much clearer, and it makes perfect sense that when you create a subteam it starts empty, the opposite would be completely broken since the entire point of subteams would be to increase access rights.
One thing they did not touch upon though: can you be a member of a team and one of its subteams? (that would be somewhat annoying).