Skip to content

docs: Add responsibles label to ocmcli component descriptor #1233

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

docs: Add responsibles label to ocmcli component descriptor #1233

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions components/ocmcli/component-constructor.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ components:
repoUrl: github.com/open-component-model/ocm
commit: (( values.COMMIT ))
version: (( values.VERSION ))



labels:
- name: cloud.gardener.cnudie/responsibles
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this label is opinionated, I am not sure if we should really accept this. if at all it should be ocm.software/responsibles. WDYT?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

seems to be related to naming conventions discussions for "standard" labels that we expect to be used with OCM we had in the past, but never productively continued / finished :-)

The OCM spec differentiates between labels with a specific meaning inside of OCM and others, vendor specific ones (see here. cloud.gardener.cnudie/responsible would fall in "vendor-specific", but is very "standard" as many teams will have a need for them.

Therefore I support Jacob's proposal and start having a set of "standard" labels in the ocm.software namespace that we offer and use in our examples and OCM owned components.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree it will likely be a good idea to have a registry of "wellknown" labels (I started an internal one here). I also agree we should eventually drop cnudie.

Considering, however, that we might see similar cases in the future, how about adding an aliases-attr to labels? Also, I would very much appreciate it so see a registry of well-known labels at this github-organisation (those might be a good fit as additional language-bindings - ours (note that the package(-name) did not age well / is subject to being refactored).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Considering that we do not want to change the specification in any way until v3 this would have to wait until a new schema version is present.

Regarding well-known labels, we are open to contributions on the specification with an extension.

as per https://github.com/open-component-model/ocm-spec/blob/main/doc/01-model/03-elements-sub.md#labels

Label types are covered by the OCM extension concept, so you can also find information [here](https://github.com/open-component-model/ocm-spec/blob/main/doc/01-model/07-extensions.md#label-types).

we currently have as available as types

  • labels with a predefined meaning within the component model
  • vendor specific labels

I am happy to introduce well known lables as a schema extension, e.g. here: https://github.com/open-component-model/ocm-spec/tree/main/doc/04-extensions

value:
- github_hostname: github.com
teamname: open-component-model/ocm-cli-team
type: githubTeam
Loading