#271 Suggestion: Add icons to Codeberg sub-organizations

Open
opened 2 months ago by lhinderberger · 9 comments

In get-it-on/pages#8 the following idea was thrown around:

How about we give each sub-organziation of Codeberg a little icon in addition to the Codeberg Logo? That would look really nice on profiles.

We could use FontAwesome for that - For example:

These don't have their own organization yet, but hypothetically, their icons could be as follows:

And for future (potential) projects for example:

We can keep this consistent with the icons in the planned new main menu.

Also, maintainers of individual projects might be easier to spot (if they choose to have their organization membership set to public on their profile).

What are your thoughts on this? :)

In get-it-on/pages#8 the following idea was thrown around: How about we give each sub-organziation of Codeberg a little icon in addition to the Codeberg Logo? That would look really nice on profiles. We could use FontAwesome for that - For example: - Fonts: https://fontawesome.com/icons/font?style=solid - Get-it-on: https://fontawesome.com/icons/certificate?style=solid These don't have their own organization yet, but hypothetically, their icons could be as follows: - Blog: https://fontawesome.com/icons/blog?style=solid - Design: https://fontawesome.com/icons/palette?style=solid - Docs: https://fontawesome.com/icons/book?style=solid - Pages: https://fontawesome.com/icons/server?style=solid And for future (potential) projects for example: - Chat: https://fontawesome.com/icons/comments?style=solid - CI: https://fontawesome.com/icons/cubes?style=solid - Packages: https://fontawesome.com/icons/parachute-box?style=solid We can keep this consistent with the icons in the planned new main menu. Also, maintainers of individual projects might be easier to spot (if they choose to have their organization membership set to public on their profile). What are your thoughts on this? :)
lhinderberger added the
enhancement
label 2 months ago
n commented 2 months ago
Poster

We can link to the sub-organizations from the description of the main organization. There should also be a standard naming format: codeberg-suborg?

We can link to the sub-organizations from the description of the main organization. There should also be a standard naming format: codeberg-`suborg`?
Poster

Prefixing the organization names with codeberg would be a good idea, because some organization names (like fonts) are not possible without a prefix in Gitea.

Prefixing the organization names with `codeberg` would be a good idea, because some organization names (like `fonts`) are not possible without a prefix in Gitea.
hw commented 2 months ago
Poster
Owner

Prefixing the organization names with codeberg would be a good idea, because some organization names (like fonts) are not possible without a prefix in Gitea.

Some might need special support in pages, please add the PR there if repos are renamed.

> Prefixing the organization names with `codeberg` would be a good idea, because some organization names (like `fonts`) are not possible without a prefix in Gitea. Some might need special support in pages, please add the PR there if repos are renamed.
Poster

How is the general feeling - should we spread the Codeberg sub-repositories over multiple sub-organizations or should we keep everything collected centrally within /Codeberg?

As far as I understood it, spreading out the repos would enable more fine-grained control over permissions and private repos (for example as discussed in Codeberg/Documentation#67) and it would enable deploying multiple Codeberg Pages sites.

On the other hand, could the same thing maybe be achieved using Gitea's Teams feature?

How is the general feeling - should we spread the Codeberg sub-repositories over multiple sub-organizations or should we keep everything collected centrally within `/Codeberg`? As far as I understood it, spreading out the repos would enable more fine-grained control over permissions and private repos (for example as discussed in Codeberg/Documentation#67) and it would enable deploying multiple Codeberg Pages sites. On the other hand, could the same thing maybe be achieved using Gitea's Teams feature?
6543 commented 2 months ago
Poster
Collaborator

@lhinderberger could the same thing maybe be achieved using Gitea’s Teams feature? YES

@lhinderberger `could the same thing maybe be achieved using Gitea’s Teams feature?` YES
6543 commented 2 months ago
Poster
Collaborator

the most granular rights control is done via teams for organisations

the most granular rights control is done via **teams** for organisations
Poster

YES

OKAY - THANK YOU! 😜

> YES OKAY - THANK YOU! 😜
Poster

What keep us from using Teams then? The deployment repos for e.g. Documentation etc. on Codeberg Pages?

What keep us from using Teams then? The deployment repos for e.g. Documentation etc. on Codeberg Pages?
6543 commented 2 months ago
Poster
Collaborator

I would propose teams:

  • Owner: thosw who are admin's of all
  • XY_Owner: thos who are admins of XY <- create team & add it to specific repo as admin
  • IssueManagers: -> rights to label/assign open/close issues
  • Mergers -> rights to merge stuff

Only Org Owner's & Inctance Admin's can change this settings

I would propose teams: * Owner: thosw who are admin's of all * XY_Owner: thos who are admins of XY <- create team & add it to specific repo as admin * IssueManagers: -> rights to label/assign open/close issues * Mergers -> rights to merge stuff Only Org Owner's & Inctance Admin's can change this settings
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
There is no content yet.