GitLab AMA Session Topic - Permission & Access

Hi everyone,

Thanks again for your involvement in the GitLab AMA session on IRC in September. As promised, this is the first of a 5-part series breaking down main topics that came up during the session. I will send a topic every week for discussion to both Fedora and CentOS devel lists. I have pulled the relevant questions and answers from the original hackmd doc into one email. If you would like to discuss this topic specifically, here might be a good place to do so. I dont consider myself technical enough to weigh in on details, but I am happy to facilitate as best I can via email. And more importantly (for me), learn from the discussion.

Here are some links to resources as well:

Topic: Permission and Access

  • Question: Fedora has a group-based access system. People in the packager group have (commit) access to only the packages they maintain. People in the provenpackager group have (commit) access to all the active packages, but a few (for legal reason). People in the releng group have commit access to all the packages. Is this an access model that GitLab can support? If not, how would this work in a GitLab world? How would notifications work (Esp consider people in the provenpackager or releng group do not want to be notified for all the projects they have access to)?

    • Answer: What I explored was something along the lines of :
      • Packager → Using GitLab’s Maintainer or Developer role for the project they maintain (Maintainer have the ability to access project settings and change pretty much everything there, so that might be blocking here, Developer only have commit access, so we need another way to change some settings for Packagers)
      • Co-Maintainer → Using GitLab’s Developer role (commit access)
      • Proven-Packager → GitLab’s Developer role on all repo (expect 2)
      • Release Engineer/Admin/etc .. → GitLab’s Owner role on all repos
      • This is not an exact matching with what we currently have but should give us a way to experiment with this and look at what is acceptable or not.
      • There is also a GitLab ticket (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/7626) to implement policies for the project that could give more granular control of permissions.
      • Gitlab’s notifications are quite granular and can be managed at the different levels (Merge Requests, Projects, Group, Global) https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/profile/notifications.html#global-notification-settings

  • Question: Fedora supports the concept of a retired project (ie: archived) that no-one can commit to. Does GitLab have an equivalent concept? (The retired status is not something project admins can change)

    • Answer: There is an option to have a “retired” group which is configured to have nobody with commit access. Then retiring a project would simply mean to move the project from the “rpm” group to “retired” group for example.
      There is also possibility to simply archive projects https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/settings/#archiving-a-project

  • Question: could gitlab (inc) maintain a Community Edition GitLab instance that Fedora uses?

    • Answer: There is no plan to create custom versions of GitLab for customers. Instead, GitLab encourages paid customers and free users alike to contribute upstream to make sure that GitLab continues to work well for the most amount of users possible. As an open core company, GitLab has a public roadmap and works with its community members to build a great product.
      GitLab regularly engages with its community and takes into account its feedback. As a result, features are often ported down into lower tiers in order to make the Community Edition and Free tiers continuously more useful (see example of 18 features moved to open source). GitLab hosting is available to users of GitLab.com SaaS, but GitLab does not offer hosting and management for GitLab CE or EE instances.

  • Question: Can project creation be restricted to a specific group of people in GitLab?

  • Question: Can project (main project, not fork) deletion be restricted to a specific group of people in GitLab? (ie: project owner/maintainer must not be allowed to delete a main project, they can delete their own fork of course)

  • Question: How would group membership be sync to GitLab?

    • Answer: We are still not 100% clear on that, since GitLab supports OpenIDC & we will need to investigate if we could make use of the group scope returned by AAA. Otherwise we will need a solution to sync the groups to GitLab most likely using API calls.

  • Question:Will there be better support for Podman in CI workflows in GitLab?

    • Answer: Short term solution might be using a custom executor, long term solution would be getting the Runner executor podman (#4185) feature request issue scheduled and closed. Ultimately product team schedules work, while everyone can contribute MRs or fixes ahead of schedule. In the past, I've seen a lot of enthusiasm from GitLab team members in helping solve problems from Open Source Program members whenever possible.

These are all the questions with answers I could spot from the larger hackmd document, however my apologies if I missed any.
next week I will pull in all the questions and answers on 'Message Bus' in a new email and send for discussion.
I know there are still some questions unanswered so I will try to chase down answers to these, but it could take some time. If I can get them answered over the next few weeks, I will send a 'misc' topic email at the end of these few weeks worth of emails.

I hope you find this helpful and it is going to take some time to work through everything so thank you for your patience and involvement in this, it is very much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Aoife

Select a repo