Request new repo for IBM-specific code

[Patrick Williams]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:09:58PM -0500, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
 
> So ... does the GitHub OpenBMC organization host vendor specific repos 
> (perhaps github.com/openbmc/ibm-misc), or does the source code go 
> somewhere else (such as IBM's public fork in 
> github.com/ibm-openbmc/pam-ibm-acf)?

I'm strongly opposed to dumping-ground repositories like
"<company>-misc".  We approved exactly one of those and the rationale we
were given was they had a bunch of existing code they were going to work
at getting upstreamed, but wanted a place to be able to interact with
their vendors in the interrim.  We should not be having *new* code going
into that or any other "misc" repository.

We have generally not wanted OpenBMC-oriented code in non-openbmc-org
repositories that are then picked up by openbmc/openbmc recipes.  If you
have a generally applicable library that isn't tied to openbmc in any
way, or especially one that already has good usage outside of openbmc,
then another github org seems reasonable.  That isn't what you have
here.

It sounds like you have a good definition here of what you want to do,
so I'm fine with `openbmc/pam-ibm-acf`.  I don't see any reason we
cannot host `openbmc/<company>-<feature>` repositories for things which
are company specific, as long as those repositories are only picked up
by your meta-<company> layer.

[[ 
   I think is / will be additional work going on in the background to
   come to better consensus and document any rules around repository
   creation.  This is my current opinion.
]]

-- 
Patrick Williams
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20210430/5aff60e8/attachment.sig>