Add incentive and rules around using GitOps compliant shield #173
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
scottrigby
added
documentation
niklasmtj
approved these changes
Mar 12, 2024
roberthstrand
approved these changes
May 15, 2024
Signed-off-by: Scott Rigby <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Niklas <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Scott Rigby <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Scott Rigby <[email protected]>
scottrigby
force-pushed
the
adopters-compliance
branch
from
60679c2 to
0c54d70
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Preview https://github.com/scottrigby/ogo-project/blob/adopters-compliance/ADOPTERS.md
Additional review notes
We should also fix the whitespace in that file and also make the adopters list into an unordered list. But keeping this simple for the moment to more easily see the diff.
Logo consideration for badge: The badge doesn't currently have an icon, which is fine. We do have a white logo in cncf/artwork repo that would look great as an enhancement, but we'd need to request the logo here but we'd more popularity on this repo first - see their policy on assessing popularity. For future, we could ask folks to star this repo, and once it reaches 5k stars we can revisit this. In the meantime, badge with no icon is still nice 😺
📊 Going for lazy consensus here. What do maintainers think about this?
Background
Conformance/compliance was one of the initial goals of the GitOps WG and OpenGitOps project. It has been discussed elsewhere but here is a GitHub discussion to track some of this: #105
More recently - last week - I missed the last OpenGitOps meeting where the question about a possible OpenGitOps shield of some kind was discussed (it was earlier asked about in this Slack thread).
My question was how can we verify someone is following the principles? Then I remembered we already sorted that out – qualitatively anyway – by using the pull review process for people who want to be listed in our
ADOPTERS.mdfile. This file has clear instructions, and just needs to be promoted more.After discussing with @niklasmtj and @christianh814 I thought it makes sense to combine these two ideas, so this PR updates the ADOPTERS file with this additional incentive 🙂